Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If she was suffering from so much emotional injury, she wouldn't have been
able to mount such a ridiculous campaign against the president, she left
herself far more open to emotional stress than she would have suffered if
she left it alone. From my point of view this is just starting to get tired
and boring. Our PM hasn't got the brains to run a piss up in a brewery
never mind the country.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 10:17 PM
Subject: L&I Jones Appeal Difficult, But Not Impossible
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Jones Appeal Difficult, But Not
> Impossible
>
> By Pierre
> Thomas/CNN
>
> WASHINGTON
> (April 16) -- Judge
> Susan Webber
> Wright's sweeping
> dismissal of Paula
> Jones' lawsuit makes
> an appeal extremely
> difficult -- difficult, but not impossible.
>
> Take, for instance, Jones' claim of emotional distress
> she says she suffered at the hands of then-Gov. Bill
> Clinton. "Mr. Clinton exposed himself to me that
> day," Jones has said.
>
> The idea that such behavior caused Jones no mental
> anguish might be difficult for a higher court to
>fathom,
> says one expert.
>
> "When Judge Wright dismissed the emotional distress
> claim, it raised concerns among many people that this
> claim is not unlike the claims of many women who
> are not arguing employment injury but rather
> emotional injury," said Jonathan Turley of George
> Washington University Law School.
>
> An appellate court might fear that blocking the Jones
> case from going to trial would have a chilling effect
> on hundreds of other sexual harassment cases.
>
> But in her ruling Judge Wright found Jones incurred
> no medical bills and never sought emotional
> counseling.
>
> In fact, Wright said Jones had no case, not for sexual
> assault. The judge said, "The conduct as alleged by
> plaintiff describes a mere sexual proposition or
> encounter, albeit an odious one, that was relatively
> brief in duration."
>
> And Wright said
> Jones had no case,
> not for sexual
> harassment. She
> ruled Jones "has not
> demonstrated any
> tangible job detriment
> or adverse
> employments action
> for her refusal to
> submit to the
> governor's alleged advances."
>
> That argument may be difficult to overturn on appeal
> and limits Jones' options, says one sexual harassment
> expert.
>
> "You have to show you weren't hired, you were
> fired, you were denied a promotion you should have
> gotten," attorney Lynne Bernabei said. "They are
> pretty strict about the kinds of sort of serious
> detriment you have to suffer in order to make out that
> kind of claim."
>
> But Bernabei says there is another important factor in
> the Jones case. Her appeal would be heard by the
> 8th Circuit, a court that is largely Republican
> appointed.
>
> That presents a mixed blessing. "It's sort of a unique
> case in that the Republican judges have been
> precisely the judges that have been so hostile to sex
> harassment cases. So in terms of ideology they
> would be against her. In terms of political, they may
> be for her," Bernabei said.
>
> In fact, that very court ruled against Clinton, saying
> he should face the Jones trial while he is still in
>office.
>--
>Two rules in life:
>
>1. Don't tell people everything you know.
>2.
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
