Reprinted from The Washington Times , 5am -- April 3, 1998
Women worry about ruling's fallout
By Nancy E. Roman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Women's advocates warned Thursday that a federal judge's decision to dismiss Paula Jones' sexual misconduct lawsuit against President Clinton could embolden sexual harassers and discourage victims from filing charges.
Top officials at both the National Organization for Women and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, a separate entity, said they were even considering joining Mrs. Jones' appeal to revive the lawsuit.
"Stroking someone's hair, fondling and exposing himself -- that is a serious incident. That is not just a clumsy pass," said Kathy Rodgers, executive director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. "When women think about it, they will agree and they will be angry."
NOW President Patricia Ireland said such behavior is definitely sexual harassment.
"Sometimes I want to grab him by the collar and shake him and say, 'Grow up, Bill,'" Mrs. Ireland said. "It is inappropriate ... and I think it is harassment."
Critics contend U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright seriously misinterpreted the law in her ruling Wednesday that, even if Mr. Clinton did invite Mrs. Jones to his hotel room, expose himself and solicit oral sex, it would not constitute unlawful sexual harassment.
Miss Rodgers said Judge Wright's action sends the wrong message to a man in the workplace who could conclude that it is acceptable to expose himself and solicit oral sex "as long as he only does it once."
"It seems to condone the serial groper," she said.
In her opinion, Judge Wright wrote that "the conduct as alleged by plaintiff describes a mere sexual proposition or encounter."
Judge Wright's ruling adds to the confusion over the vague and changing sexual harassment law, complicated by the frustrating "he said, she said" nature of the cases.
"If indecent exposure and asking her to 'kiss it' isn't sexual harassment, how can all this other stuff be?" asked one female member of Congress, who asked not to be named.
Under the "hostile work environment" section of the federal law, courts have ruled that making lewd comments or posting embarrassing cartoons or pinup calendars is illegal sexual harassment.
"Clearly that's the problem with the law," said Barbara Olson, executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.
She said as the case works its way up the appellate ladder, possibly reaching the Supreme Court, the judiciary will be forced to define sexual harassment.
"It is an area where no one knows where the boundaries are, and that's a problem for women," Mrs. Olson said. "A risk-averse employer is going to do what they always do: avoid women."
Catherine Fisk, an employment and labor lawyer who teaches at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said, "We've gone from the late 1970s, when this wasn't even considered sexual discrimination but rather 'boys will be boys,' to a period in the 1980s with some people believing that any sexual horseplay in the workplace is unacceptable.
"Some people say, 'Hey, your boss is occasionally going to act like a jerk, but life is hard and the law shouldn't get involved in that,'" she said.
And not all feminists agree on what constitutes sexual harassment.
Gloria Steinem, feminist author and founder of Ms. magazine, agrees with Judge Wright that solicitation of sex, touching and exposing oneself is not sexual harassment if it only happens once.
She has said sexually aggressive politicians who take "no" for an answer should be able to hold high office without having to lie.
Of Mrs. Jones, she wrote, "She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. ... In other words, President Clinton took 'no' for an answer."
Judy Mueller, executive director of the Virginia Women's Center, said Judge Wright's dismissal "clearly decided" that a single incident cannot be sexual harassment.
Courts, policy-makers and legislators have struggled to limit conduct with language -- sometimes forbidding "looks" and "leers" and "abuse of familiarities or diminutives such as 'honey,' 'sweetheart,' 'darling,' 'dear' or 'baby.'"
Sexual harassment is illegal sex discrimination under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under similarly worded state laws in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged with enforcing Title 7, defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature."
The agency's guidelines say an offense occurs when:
- Employees believe they will lose their jobs if they do not submit to sexual proposals.
- Employees believe they will lose promotions or good work assignments if they do not submit to sexual proposals.
- Such conduct interferes with the employees' jobs or creates a hostile working environment.
To sue in federal court, a complaint must be filed with the EEOC. After investigating the claims, the agency will seek a voluntary resolution. If none is available and the agency finds "reasonable cause," it will represent the complainant.
If the agency does not accept the case, it will issue a right-to-sue certificate that allows the complainant to proceed privately, although costs are often prohibitive.
Last year, 15,889 complaints were filed with the EEOC. Of those, 808 were determined to have reasonable cause. Penalties range from a court order demanding that the harassment stop to loss of job, pension and benefits.
Mrs. Ireland warned employers that Judge Wright's ruling was not a permission slip for sexual overtures in the workplace.
"Jones alleges that Clinton ran his hand up her thigh, exposed himself to her, asked for oral sex and pointedly reminded her of his friendship with her immediate boss," she said in a statement. "No woman should have to put up with such behavior at work."Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc.
Reprinted with permission of
The Washington Times.
To subscribe to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition, click this icon or call 800-363-9118.
