Facts On Sexual Harrasment

Q: In analyzing NOW's motivation, none of the commentators seem to be mentioning a statement made last week by Gloria Allred on Geraldo Live. Allred is the leading feminist attorney on sexual harassment, and long-time president of L.A. NOW, the largest NOW chapter in the U.S. except perhaps New York. Allred stated that "women can still prevail in sexual harassment cases, if they have the right facts" Paula Jones' lawyers chose not to sue under Title VII, because they hoped to get a better deal under Arkansas law, which has a special provision for "outrageous" conduct, which by itself wouldn't work under Title VII. Why then was Paula Jones' case dismissed, for lack of evidence of emotional injury, if emotional injury is not a requirement of sexual harassment?

A: Jones' lawyer bases his appeal on the claim that a woman shouldn't need proof of emotional distress, in order to make a case for distress in front of a jury. There's just one problem: If that were true, it wouldn't just be true in sexual harassment cases. An emotional distress precedent would apply in all kinds emotional distress cases, a favorite among ambulance chasers. If somebody's dog got run over, the family could finger some guy at random and claim a right to a jury trial for emotional distress, without any proof that the guy they fingered was even there. That, clearly, is not something the courts can allow. There has to be tangible evidence of something other than the plaintiff's flair for histrionics, in order to get a case into court. Otherwise the courts would be swamped with trumped up cases on everything from auto accidents to trampled flowers, with no way to stem the tide. Legitimate cases would be crowded out. NOW. lawyers have no incentive to lower the bar for publicity-seekers with no case. NOW always bases their strategy on setting objective standards of sexual harassment -- so that, as Allred put it, "a woman can prevail if she has the right facts", regardless of her acting ability. NOW's ultimate goal is to stop sexual harassment, by drawing the line on specific behaviors, so

there's no misunderstanding. NOW lawyers are well aware that harassers can also snow a jury, and often do. There'd be no point in helping slippery harassers. The other thing to remember is that Jones doesn't win even if she wins an appeal. Even if a court did uphold Jones' 'right' to present her emotional distress claim to a jury, all that would get her is a new trial in Arkansas -- and she still doesn't have any evidence. Jones' lawyers aren't even trying to appeal the judge's decision that Jones can't bring in 'witnesses' to stories they've allegedly heard about Clinton, because the judge said Jones has to prove her own case, and nothing else is admissible.