Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4338)	2/3/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Not the case at all: Is the White House A 'Hostile Environment' For Women? By RAMON P. MARKS The possibility of criminal wrongdoing is not the only compelling legal issue arising from President Clinton's alleged sexual conduct in the White House. If the charges reportedly made by Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey are true, Mr. Clinton could face liability for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Certainly the case against Mr. Clinton appears stronger than the charges Anita Hill leveled against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Ms. Hill's charges almost certainly came too late to be actionable under Title VII's statute of limitations. And Ms. Hill's allegations centered on Justice Thomas's alleged use of vulgar language, obscene humor and sexual innuendo rather than on a request for sexual favors in the workplace. Plaintiffs' lawyers specializing in sexual harassment suits would probably have assessed her case as not too promising. Originally the courts categorized sexual harassment in narrow terms, meaning there had to be a concrete link between a demand for sex and job security or pay. These are known as "quid pro quo" harassment cases. The U.S. Supreme Court significantly expanded the legal definition of harassment in its 1986 ruling in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson to include situations in which an employee finds herself in a hostile or offensive working environment, defined to include "situations involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature," regardless of any quid pro quo. As the justices said, "Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult." The president is subject to the same laws that govern the behavior of corporate CEOs. And if Ms. Lewinsky were inclined to sue the president for sexual harassment, she might have a strong case. Because of Title VII's 300-day statute of limitations, her White House colleague Ms. Willey, whom Mr. Clinton allegedly groped in 1993, could probably make a case only if she could show that the president has continued to behave improperly toward her. The two women's alleged facts could be assessed as at least sufficient for making a "hostile environment" claim for sexual harassment. Plaintiffs' lawyers would try to paint the picture along these lines: In the West Wing of the White House, Mr. Clinton has displayed a pervasive pattern of preying on female employees and engaging in unwelcome sexual conduct, thereby creating a hostile work environment. As evidence to help support this, lawyers would be entitled to bring in accounts of the president allegedly engaging in improper conduct not only with the plaintiffs but also with other West Wing employees--perhaps even of alleged encounters with state employees when Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas. According to some press reports, the president allegedly told Ms. Lewinsky he has had liaisons with "hundreds" of women. If accurate, that statement could mean a field day for plaintiffs' lawyers. Using the powerful tools of civil discovery, they would collect any evidence they could find and try to link it all together to show that the Clinton White House is a giant "hostile workplace" for women. To establish their case, Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Willey would not even have to show any loss of job benefits. Even a single incident involving the president, if severe enough, could be sufficient to set up a hostile-environment case. The alleged "groping" episode involving Ms. Willey in the president's study would seem to qualify. The president would have some legal defenses. He could claim that his alleged advances were not "unwelcome" by either Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Willey or others (though obviously this would be politically ticklish). Mr. Clinton might, however, find himself facing the same problem corporate executives sometimes do when they find themselves caught in the web of such lawsuits: While a female employee initially may welcome an advance, over time she may change her mind about it. This is particularly likely to happen if some other negative job event occurs--such as, by way of example only, Ms. Lewinsky's transfer from the White House to the "Siberia" of a Pentagon secretarial job. Many critics of our sexual harassment laws say that the process places too much power in the hands of the aggrieved female employee. If she likes the advance, there is no illegal sexual harassment, but if she changes her mind later about that advance, her alleged pursuer can be subjected to a judge or jury second-guessing what really happened. If Ms. Lewinsky or Ms. Willey decides to invoke her Title VII rights, President Clinton could find himself in just this type of embarrassing and difficult situation. Ms. Lewinsky's reported allegations could entail an even more dangerous legal situation for Mr. Clinton, since she might be able to make a classic case of direct, quid pro quo sexual harassment. Ms. Lewinsky might allege that she was intimidated into an affair with the president to keep her job. Ms. Lewinsky could perhaps also argue that she was then "punished" by people in the White House for having engaged in sex with the president. The retaliation was the loss of her White House position and transfer to an obscure job at the Pentagon because people at the White House did not like what was allegedly going on between her and Mr. Clinton. Other female employees on the White House staff might even make a claim that they are suffering discrimination as a result of the "hostile environment" created by the president's alleged inappropriate behavior. To support such a claim in court, they would have to show that the president confers professional advantages on women with whom he becomes sexually involved. In the face of similar allegations, lawyers representing a CEO of any large publicly owned company would have reason to be quite concerned--not only that employees might sue but also that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, prompted by press reports, might intervene. The company's equal-employment compliance officers would be hustling executives into mandatory sensitivity-training sessions. Does the West Wing even have a compliance officer? If Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Willey's allegations involved Bill Gates instead of Bill Clinton, does anyone have any doubt that the Justice Department and the EEOC would take swift, strong action? The same laws apply, and should be as vigorously enforced, in the Oval Office as in the corporate boardroom. Mr. Marks is a New York lawyer. interactive2.wsj.com