Dwight, according to Title VII, to prove sexual harassment, one must demonstrate either that 1) there was a quid pro quo -- e.g. job advancement for sex, or that 2) constant harassment created a "hostile work environment." (The latter could not apply to Jones, because Clinton had no control over/connection with her work environment, and "harassed" her only once; Jones did try to argue the former.)
Here is a summary of the judge's decision in Paula Jones case (key sections italicized):
The lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones against President Clinton was dismissed April 1, 1998 upon a
motion by the President for Summary Judgment. In a 39 page Memorandum Opinion and Order,
Arkansas Federal District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the evidence presented in the
case provided no genuine issues of material fact for the case to proceed to a jury trial. Judge Wright
rejected the plaintiff's claims that she had presented sufficient evidence to state claims of unlawful
sexual harassment, as analyzed under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 or conspiracy to
deprive her of her rights to equal protection of the laws. The Court also found that the evidence failed to
support a third and final cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress or "outrage"
under Arkansas state law. The court assumed all facts most favorable to the plaintiff which included her
allegations the president requested oral sex and presented her with an exposed, erect penis in his hotel
room on May 8, 1991.
Judge Wright found that there was no "quid pro quo" sexual harassment because case law requires that
the evidence show the plaintiff suffered a tangible job detriment or adverse employment action as a result
of rejected demands for sexual favors. The facts also presented no threat which "clearly conditions
concrete job benefits or detriments on compliance with sexual demands...even if the the threat remains
unfulfilled." Judge Wright stated on page 22, "The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case
and finds nothing in the plaintiff's employment records, her own testimony, or the testimony of her
supervisors showing that plaintiff's reaction to Governor Clinton's alleged advances affected tangible
aspects of her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment." The record showed that the
plaintiff was never downgraded in her position, she was upgraded and her salary was increased, there
were no records that she applied for more attractive jobs but was denied, she received every merit
increase and cost-of-living allowance and she was always given good job evaluations. Her post maternity
job change did not decrease her salary, did not change her job classification or essential job duties to be
deemed a significant disadvantage and thus she "cannot establish a tangible job detriment."
The Court
rejected her claims that she was effectively denied access to grievance procedures because from her
"perspective" it appeared unlikely any good would come from it. The Court also rejected her claim that
she was subjected to hostile treatment having tangible effects when she was isolated physically, made to
sit in a location from which she was constantly watched, made to sit at her workstation with no work to
do (although she testified that she was made to input data 'all day long') and singled out as the only
female employee not to be given flowers on Secretary's Day. "The plaintiff acknowledges that she was
never threatened with adverse employment action. These perceptions are merely conclusory in nature and
do not, without more, constitute a tangible job detriment...General allegations of hostility and personal
animus are not sufficient to demonstrate any adverse employment action..." Indeed there was no proof
that anyone else knew of the alleged sexual advance or of her rejection of it.
The court next turned to the plaintiff's "hostile work environment" claim of sexual harassment. This
required a showing of sexual conduct that has the effect or purpose of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. A
plaintiff must establish among other things that she was subjected to unwelcome acts of sexual
harassment based upon her sex that effected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. The conduct
must be "unwelcome" in that it was not invited and the employee immediately regarded the conduct as
undesirable or offensive. The harassment must be sexual in nature and also be sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. The Court
found that only one event allegedly occurred at a hotel and that her allegations only contain "conclusory
claims that her supervisors were rude. These contacts do not in any way constitute the kind of pervasive,
intimidating, abusive conduct that courts require to establish a hostile work environment claim." The
court found that "development of the record has now established that plaintiff's allegations of adverse
employment action are without merit." Even if she suffered some job detriments, there was no proof that
this resulted from her rejection of the President's alleged improper sexual conduct. " She admits that she
never missed a day of work following the alleged incident in the hotel, she continued to work at the AIDC
another nineteen months (leaving only because of her husband's job transfer), she continued to go on a
daily basis to the Governor's Office to deliver items and never asked to be relieved of that duty, she never
filed a formal complaint or told her supervisors of the incident while at AIDC, and she never consulted a
psychiatrist, psychologist, or incurred medical bills as a result of the alleged incident." The record
showed that she worked without apparent problems or negative personal reaction to the incident as she
was given good job ratings and pay increases indicating her job performance efforts were good. This was
not an act of criminal sexual assault or an exceptional case where a single incident of sexual
harassment can be deemed sufficient to state a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, it simply cannot be said that the conduct to which the
plaintiff was allegedly subjected was frequent, severe, or physically threatening." In addition there was
no proof that any subsequent conditions at her work were caused by anyone with knowledge of her
alleged experience or from her own reaction thereto.
Lastly the Court rejected the argument that the alleged conduct was sufficiently outrageous to inflict
emotional distress under Arkansas state law. A showing of intentional sexual harassment or sexual
assault can support such an action but the earlier finding was that there was no proof of actionable
unlawful sexual harassment or assault. The conduct if true would only be considered an offensive
sexual proposition or encounter that was brief in duration, did not involve any coercion or threats, "and
was abandoned as soon as the plaintiff made it clear that the advance was not welcome." The Court
repeated that the plaintiff did not suffer any emotional distress, or marital problems and she suffered no
adverse reaction at work or retaliation. The Court did not credit a last minute declaration from a
purported expert with a Ph.D. that the plaintiff suffered "severe emotional distress and consequent sexual
aversion." In the absence of physical harm, the courts look for more in the way of extreme outrage as an
assurance that the mental disturbance claimed is not fictitious. The courts find it significant when a
physician or mental health professional has not been seen for such emotional concerns. The fact that a
mental health professional is seen after obtaining legal representation on the advise of the attorney and
in response to the defendant pointing out the lack of doctor or mental health care does not overcome the
failure of proof on this point. The plaintiff failed to allege the severe outrage and harm required under
the state law to state a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
An appeal is said to be pending but few give it much chance. The ruling does not approve of one time
(flashing) offensive behavior but puts an obligation on claimants to report the matter promptly to
employers who can and will take strong and even terminating action if appropriate for offensive conduct
against employees, instead of waiting almost three years and then first complaining about what
happened by filing a lawsuit seeking 2.7 million dollars for seeing a penis. Lawsuits, compelling
testimony and invading the time and privacy of of dozens of witnesses, making painful and private
sexual matters public, possibly defaming someone and ruining their reputation, business and ability to
provide for their family and employees, and using our scarce court resources, are for those who suffer
and are caused true gender discrimination and harm at work, not those who may be motivated by
"winning the lottery." The need for a monetary solution in court is often a motive for false and frivolous
claims which hurt not only the ability to see allegations as coming from a credible unbiased person, but
is also very harmful to the legitimate claimants who have really suffered from actual wrongful sexual
harassment. This case will help those truly hurt by discouraging frivolous claims and focusing on the
effect of conduct in the work place to prevent unlawful discrimination.
Jones vs. Clinton
Return to Top of Page
|
