Edit/lacter/april6/dt1st/mike2nd
Hd He Said, She Said
What does President Clinton have in common with countless business owners and managers around the country? He has been grilled relentlessly and as it turns out, pointlessly on a charge of sexual harassment.
Dockets continue to be filled with he-said, she-said accusations that can cost companies tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs alone.
To be sure, some of the charges are valid. Certain industries entertainment is one seem to have a predilection for hiring men who get their kicks by abusing or humiliating women.
Along with these very understandable reasons for going to court, however, there have been those who scream “sexual harassment” when, in fact, there is little or no evidence of mistreatment other than the claims of the women involved. These nuisance suits tend to get sorted out in the end, but in the world of he-said, she-said, juries have been known to be unpredictable.
That’s why businesses often settle such cases out of court no matter how flimsy the evidence might be. Their rationale? Sexual harassment remains a buzz phrase that can stick with a company or its employees for years after the fact. Better to quickly cut a check than go to court and risk losing the case months or even years down the line as well as wind up paying many more thousands of dollars, not to mention the lost time and morale.
Clearly, this is not the way life should work. The good guys should not be punished because of a relative few bad guys. And employees should not be rewarded on the basis of a few unsubstantiated claims.
But like it or not, these nuisance suits have become the cost of doing business and sexual harassment claims are just one of the hazards facing companies large and small. Wrongful termination, product liability and “deep pocket” claims are a few of the other trouble spots. Some progress has been made in state and federal legislation, but survey after survey finds business people citing lawsuit abuse as a major hindrance to their bottom lines.
That’s why the decision by Federal District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright to throw out the Paula Jones lawsuit might represent an important turning point.
The lawyers for Jones could never gain traction on the sexual harassment charge because there was never any evidence that Jones’ advancement as an Arkansas government employee was hampered by what did or did not happen in that hotel room on May 8, 1991.
“The conduct as alleged by the plaintiff describes a mere sexual proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one, that was relatively brief in duration, did not involve any coercion or threats of reprisals and was abandoned as soon as the plaintiff made clear that the advance was not welcome,” wrote Wright in her ruling.
Wright also noted that Jones did not file a complaint after the alleged incident, required no professional help, suffered no job discrimination, and received all the merit raises to which she was entitled as a state clerk.
In fact, Jones made the accusations almost three years after the fact.
Wright’s decision wisely steered clear of Clinton’s judgment in getting himself into such a spot (an issue in many of his troubles) and focused squarely on the facts at hand. Simply put, Jones had no case and thus deserved no award.
If only such matters were resolved this way all the time.
