|
Paula Jones vs. President Clinton
Paula's New Problem: Why an appeal would be no small feat
There's no question that Paula Jones feels cheated out of her day in court. But it will be an uphill battle to successfully appeal the April 1 judgment by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright that Jones' case did not merit going to trial. [text of Wright opinion]
Wright's ruling was extraordinarily detailed. It dealt exhaustively with the facts of Jones case, including the details of her alleged 1991 encounter with then-Governor Bill Clinton as well as the difficulties she faced in her job at the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission (AIDC) after the alleged incident.
Wright did not question the facts of Jones' main argument. Instead, she had to assume everything Jones alleged was true -- not only the alleged incident in a Little Rock hotel room, but any of the elements which led Jones to claim that her bosses at her Arkansas state government job discriminated against her.
Wright ruled that the facts presented in the case, even taken as a whole, were too weak for a trial.
"I think it's a very difficult case to appeal because the judge has gone through piece by piece and made a determination it should be thrown out," says Washington University law professor Jane Aiken, who specializes in evidence in sexual harassment cases.
In fact, if Jones has a standing to win an appeal, it will likely rest on facts that were not included in her case, either because there is additional substantive evidence that her attorneys will try to show is crucial, or because of several decisions Judge Wright made to exclude certain information.
Most notable among those decisions may have been Wright's January 29 ruling that the testimony of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was inadmissible. Wright ruled that using Lewinsky's statements could interfere with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's ongoing criminal probe, and that the testimony was not essential to Jones' suit.
Jones could also focus on Wright's insistence that despite the case's grounding in civil rights statutes -- rather than traditional sexual harassment law -- the Jones attorneys would have to adhere to the standards for harassment set out in Title VII of the 1963 Civil Rights Act, the law used in the majority of sexual harassment cases.
However, that decision is widely accepted as the standard in federal courts.
Moreover, Wright's ruling used Jones' own version of her story to shoot down her claims of a hostile work environment and emotional distress.
In her decision, Wright pointed to the fact that Jones never missed a day of work following the alleged 1991 incident, that she continued to work at AIDC for over a year and a half afterwards, that she never complained about the incident and that she never consulted a doctor or mental health expert about any possible emotional impact of the alleged advances until earlier this year.
Perhaps most damaging to Jones is the fact that Wright determined that even if the incident with Clinton had occurred, there was inadequate evidence to show that it had any effect on Jones' employment. The Eighth Circuit, though, will have to consider for itself whether Jones' encounter with Clinton was enough to make her work situation awkward.
"Can this one incident be considered severe enough to create a hostile environment? That's a question of judicial line-drawing," says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, an expert in harassment law. "They might draw it pretty much where Judge Wright did. They might draw it somewhere else."
Jones and her backers are certain to contemplate the political consequences of an appeal as well. The conservative Rutherford Institute, which has funded much of the Jones legal onslaught, will have to determine if it is feasible -- or politically desirable -- to continue funding her cause.
Some followers of the case have argued that the political dividends of the Jones case have already been reaped. That presumably came during the discovery process, which allowed for the airing of numerous allegations and charges against the president. The appeals process is a purely legal endeavor, with no recourse for the Jones side to continue their detailed investigations into Clinton's past.
"I don't know where the motivation ends, and if the motivation was really around discovery, then it's ended," says Aiken.
Even if Rutherford is willing to fund an appeal, it is uncertain whether they will retain Jones' current lawyers, led by Dallas attorney Donovan Campbell, Jr. and his office, or will seek out new counsel to continue the process.
Several forthcoming Supreme Court cases dealing with sexual harassment issues have the potential to aid Jones with her task to prove to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis that Judge Wright was misguided in her dismissal. A ruling easing the standards of proof required for a quid pro quo harassment case (demanding sexual favors in return for workplace advancement) or a hostile work environment claim could bolster Jones' case.
However, those rulings may not be handed down until after Jones' attorneys have filed their briefs before the court.
If anything looks to help Jones, it could be the standard procedure for federal reviews of summary judgment motions. The appeals judges will have to review her case based solely on the facts, as Judge Wright did. All of the issues Wright wrestled with will be left to reconsider anew.
"They're going to have to make that decision themselves," says Volokh. "They cannot say, 'Maybe Judge Wright is right and maybe Judge Wright is wrong, but her decision is reasonable enough that we'll defer to her.'"
Jones' lot is not hopeless: the Eighth Circuit has overturned Wright before in this case. In fact, her decision not to allow the case to proceed while Clinton was still President was overturned by the appeals court before it was sent to the Supreme Court, which also disagreed with Wright.
But Wright seems to have covered her bases this time, and in a sturdier area of the law than the consideration of whether to delay civil litigation against a standing President. If Jones hopes to win an appeal, her lawyers may simply have to argue that only a jury should have an opportunity to review the facts, not a jurist appointed by President Bush who has crossed paths with Clinton before.
Last time, he was a law professor and she was his student, trying to argue that she merited a higher grade. She won that round.
-Jon Bonné
April 15, 1998
| 
