Some legal questions about the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against President Clinton by Paula Jones. Q. What does Jones claim Bill Clinton did in 1991?
A. Jones, then a clerk for the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, says she was working at a state-sponsored conference on May 8, 1991, when Gov. Clinton's bodyguard, state trooper Danny Ferguson, said Clinton wanted to see her in his hotel room. In the room, she claims Clinton talked to her and tried to touch her. She says she rebuffed him but he dropped his pants, exposing his penis and asked for oral sex.
She says when she refused, Clinton asked her not to tell anyone.
Afterward, Jones says she was treated rudely at work, got a less important job, and was denied raises - all for spurning Clinton.
Q. What does Clinton say?
A. Clinton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, says Clinton "has no recollection of ever meeting this woman . . . He does not want to deny that this is possible that he met her, but he absolutely denies the allegations."
Q. What would make his actions, if true, sexual harassment under federal law?
A. Jones was a state employee and Clinton as governor was her ultimate boss. Federal law forbids bias based on race or gender in the workplace. She claims Clinton's behavior amounts to this kind of bias.
Q. Don't such suits have to be filed sooner?
A. Sexual harassment victims normally have 180 days to file complaints. But Jones filed under Section 1983 of the federal code, allowing her three years to bring suit. Section 1983 lets individuals sue for monetary damages when government officials, acting "under color of state law," violate their constitutional rights.
Q. What is the purpose of the law Jones is citing?
A. The law was passed after the Civil War to protect former slaves from mistreatment by officials. Most people suing under the law - like Rodney King, who was beaten by Los Angeles police - claim police or prison guards discriminated against them racially.
Q. How does that law relate to sexual harassment?
A. Jones claims Clinton violated her right to "equal protection of the laws" under the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Her claim, if true, has elements of both types of sexual harassment recognized by courts. In one, a threat of reprisal - or promise of reward - is made with a sexual advance. In the other, a "hostile working environment" is created through a pattern of activity - or one single, egregious act.
Q. How can she prove her claim?
A. She could subpoena other women who claim they were treated similarly by Clinton. She could call friends and family to whom she reported the incident. And she suggests in her complaint she noticed "distinguishing characteristics" in Clinton's genital area she could testify about to prove he exposed himself. Clinton could say those characteristics are known to others, so her knowledge proves nothing.
Q. What other defenses might Clinton have?
A. "Clinton has to fight this with one arm tied behind his back," says Georgetown law professor Paul Rothstein. Defenses normally used against sexual harassment charges might be politically dangerous for Clinton, he says. For example, a defendant might try to paint the accuser as promiscuous, or might try to settle out of court. Both tactics seem undignified and politically unpalatable for Clinton. Chicago lawyer Gloria Portela, who has defended clients against harassment charges, says Clinton could attack Jones' credibility by "raising the question of why this . . . was not reported earlier."
Q. What penalties could Clinton face?
A. On each of the four counts, Jones asks for $ 75,000 in compensatory damages - to cover actual losses - and $ 100,000 in punitive damages, as a means of punishing Clinton. In theory, Clinton could face fines as high as $ 700,000, plus her legal costs.
Q. What about Clinton's legal costs?
A. Bennett reportedly bills $ 450 an hour. Bennett could reduce or delay his bills. But that might raise eyebrows because it could be seen as a contribution to Clinton by a firm with a wide range of legal and lobbying clients. One option: setting up a legal defense fund.
Q. What's next for Clinton?
A. Clinton has 20 days from Monday, when he was served the complaint, to answer to the federal judge on the case. But Bennett could delay the response by filing motions - including a motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a credible claim. Bennett also could claim a sitting president cannot be sued.
Q. Why would Clinton be immune from this lawsuit?
A. Courts have generally shown great deference to the office of the president in suits.
Their main concern: the president should not be intimidated by lawsuits during his or her term of office.
Q. If the suit goes forward, what is the timetable?
A. There is none. The judge would confer with lawyers soon to plan for producing documents and oral and written questioning, which could take months. Some suggest the process be frozen until Clinton is out of office, but Rothstein says, "that is quite unprecedented" and might be seen as giving the president special treatment.
Q. Would Clinton have to appear publicly in court?
A. In deference to the president's time constraints, the judge could permit Clinton to testify by videotape.
Q. Who will preside over the case?
A. The federal judge assigned to the case is Susan Wright, a 1990 Bush appointee who is the only female federal judge in active service in Arkansas. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which assesses judges based on anonymous surveys of lawyers, has this to say about Wright, 45: "Lawyers said Wright is extremely bright, but is not adept at handling trials."
