Sexual Harassment (was Re: Should Feminists Support...
Q: The judge dismissed Paula Jones' case because even if everything she said
about Clinton's actions were true, it still didn't meet the definition of
sexual harrassment. I don't have the Arkansas laws, but here's the
federal definition of sexual harrassment from the EEOC's web page
That last line in the description of the law "or at least one severe
instance of unwelcome sexual conduct" can mean pretty much anything, I
would expect. If there is that sort of clause in the Arkansas law, then
I can imagine somebody saying "If a man drops his drawers in front of
me, that's a *severe instance*", and who can say otherwise? Or is that
the sort of thing that has precedent attached to it?
A: The person who rules is the judge in the case, and after listening to all the claims, she decided that even if Clinton did *everythin* he was accused of doing to Paula Jones, it still didn't meet the standards for sexual harassment. That's why it's so annoying that the House Judiciary Committee and House decided to pass these articles to the Senate without first determining whether they would be impeachable offenses. Because, if the Senate rules that Clinton's actions - even if true - still don't merit losing his office, then it's really rather pointless to hold the trial to see whether or not they are true, since either way he'd retain his job. Other punishment can be handled by the court system after Clinton leaves office. The only thing the Senate can and should judge is whether or not to throw him out of office. What you are talking about here is the severity of the event, and indeed some behavior may be considered sexual hara ssment even if it happend only once. Also, if it did happen only once, Paula Jones could have charged Clinton with sexual ASSAULT instead of harassment. Just because it happened at the workplace or with a coworker doesn't mean it's workplace harassment.
Most Popular Articles
- Home Improvement
- Mechanical Engineering
- Hot Tubs