Sex ruling favours Paula Jones' case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE US Supreme Court marked the last day of its summer term yesterday by handing down two landmark rulings that could improve Paula Jones's chances of victory in her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton.
In the first judgment, the court decided that someone who is the subject of unwanted sexual advances from a superior at work may be a victim of sexual harassment, even if she - and it is mostly she - suffers no professional disadvantage from refusing.
In the second, the court ruled that an employer may be held liable for sexual harassment committed by employees against more junior employees, facilitating claims for substantial damages.
Ms Jones brought a civil suit for sexual harassment against Mr Clinton, alleging that he made an unwanted sexual advances to her in a Little Rock hotel room eight years ago. Earlier this year, however, the judge dismissed the case, in part because she said there was no evidence that Ms Jones' career had been damaged.
Ms Jones had been waiting for the Supreme Court to rule whether a successful sexual harassment suit required the complainant to demonstrate professional harm before deciding whether to proceed with an appeal. She is now expected to start appeal proceedings later this month.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments