Chief executives in heat should probably not look to Judge Susan Webber Wright's ruling as a license to terrorize. True, even with the Rutherford Institute's money and a team of highly motivated lawyers, advantages most sexual-harassment plaintiffs don't have, Jones lost. What is more, many judges think sexual-harassment claims have gone too far, that one-time propositions like Clinton's should not be the basis for litigation. Call this the "no harm, no foul" school, and include among its proponents a majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, for instance, recently wrote that sexual-harassment law should not be interpreted as a "general...
To continue reading:
or
Log-In
