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: DD™ who wrote (14098)	4/20/1998 9:17:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Irony, thy name is Clinton: Sexual harassment before the Court There was Bill Clinton in Africa, three weeks ago on his previous scandal-escape journey, banging a drum and chomping on a cigar to celebrate Judge Susan Webber Wright's decision to dismiss Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against him. But it may have been a very different story this weekend at the Hyatt in Santiago, Chile. ÿÿÿÿÿAs The Washington Times' Frank J. Murray reported Sunday, Mr. Clinton's own Justice Department, in the person of his own Solicitor General, is strongly backing a position in a case going before the Supreme Court this week that would pretty well ensure a reversal of Judge Wright's dismissal. The case is Burlington Industries vs. Kimberly Ellerth. And the issue in question is whether a woman claiming sexual harassment at work must show "tangible job detriment" to make a legal claim. ÿÿÿÿÿKimberly Ellerth was subjected to crude sexual remarks by one of her bosses. He complimented her legs and told her to wear shorter skirts; he asked about her sex life with her husband; and he told her he could make her life at work easy or hard. Mrs. Ellerth rejected the boss' advances, as Paula Jones says she rejected Mr. Clinton's. And though Mrs. Ellerth claimed no retaliation at the office, she nevertheless believed she had been threatened and sexually harassed -- as does Mrs. Jones. ÿÿÿÿÿA lower court agreed that Mrs. Ellerth did not have to show retaliation on the job, ruling that she needed only to prove that a sexual proposition was accompanied by a threat. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will be hearing Burlington Industries' appeal of that ruling. ÿÿÿÿÿWhat Burlington would like is a ruling similar to the one that let Bill Clinton (at least temporarily) off the hook in the Jones case. Judge Wright found that "a showing of a tangible job detriment is an essential element of plaintiff's quid pro quo sexual harassment claim." ÿÿÿÿÿThe Clinton Justice Department is taking quite the opposite position. "Congress intended," wrote Solicitor General Seth Waxman in an amicus brief in the Ellerth case, "to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment between men and women, not simply discrimination that causes tangible harm." Worse, Mr. Waxman is so keen on this interpretation that he has taken the unusual step of requesting permission to argue it as friend of the court at the Wednesday hearing. ÿÿÿÿÿOf course, the Clinton administration is between a rock and a hard place on the issue of sexual harassment. Mr. Clinton stands accused by more than one woman of very some crude and offensive sexual behavior. But some of his most devoted supporters are women who believe that a man should be fired for looking the wrong way at a female colleague at the office water cooler; and of course the liberal theology that informs much Clintonian policy preaches that view as well. ÿÿÿÿÿRegardless of liberal piety, though, it's a safe bet that Mr. Clinton himself isn't too delighted that his Solicitor General has decided to go whole hog for an argument that -- if adopted by the Supreme Court -- could land the president and his distinguishing characteristic right back in court.

To: DD™ who wrote (14098)	4/20/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 20981

Double D, in the longer report that you got the FDIC stuff from, wasn't there a paragraph that said it would still be difficult to indict Mrs. Clinton, because all the testimony against her would be coming from convicted felons? Even though it is certainly suspicious when records disappear only to miraculously show up years later, and copies that are slightly different are found hidden in another place, the general smell of the the whole thing does not mean that there is enough to indict or convict, particularly with the wily Clintons (unfortunately).