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: wonk who wrote (5024)	9/23/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Wrong. She did not rule that Jones had not sufficiently documented her charge of sexual harassment. She said that even if true, Clinton's actions did not rise to the level of "outrage" to allow the case to proceed if she could not prove damages. In other words, her only legal claim would have to be that his behaviour was so egregious that it would have to rise to a level of outrage beyond which a person should be expected to endure. (gee, where were the feminists on that one? I happen to disagree with the Judge's interpretation of "outrageous" Any man who drops his pants and exposes himself and says "Kiss it" constitutes outrageous conduct, imo.) Her argument was that her only case would be for her to substantiate damages to proceed and she had not met that requirement. The Burlington Decision puts the "damage" requirement away. The appeal in the Jones case stands a very good chance of re-instatement. Not a slam dunk, but I think the odds are better than 50/50. bp