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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5018)	9/23/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I talked to several legal scholars that universities here in D.C. and they told me the Burlington case won't affect the legal angles in the Jones case at all and anyone that thinks this isn't the case is just poorly informed on the law. Not only that, but you are missing the point that a jury still might have found Jones to be lying. The assumption that it might be true isn't saying it was.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5018)	9/23/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

bp: I think in light of the Lewinsky revelations, they (the press) owe Paula Jones an apology. In spite of what you say, (and I'm not going to go over this ground again, it's been thoroughly documented) the Jones case went through every single hurdle to present evidence of sexual harassment and the case was only dismissed because according to Judge Wright, there was insufficient evidence to prove "damages" even if the behavior took place (as described by Jones about the President). I think you've turned the Judge's ruling upside down. As I remember it, she ruled that the plaintiff had not sufficiently documented her charge of sexual harassment to proceed further, hence summary judgement. She went on to buttress her ruling by stating that even if the allegations of the plaintiff were true they did not constitute harassment based upon her interpretation of the law and prevailing precedent in the circuit. Therefore, she ruled as both a matter of fact and of law that Ms. Jones did not have a case. ww

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5018)	9/23/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The sexual harrassment as it stands now is flawed, as the women's organizations admit. What happens in situations where the offender uses rewards instead of punishment. In both cases, they are linked to the offending behavior. Both cases are disruptive to office morale, and open up the organization to lawsuits for discrimination, unfair promotion practices, etc.