Court Clears Way For Harassment Suits

Sexually harassed workers likely will find it easier to sue their employers because of two Friday Supreme Court rulings that will have enormous importance for America's workplaces.

In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the court said employers are always potentially liable for a supervisor's sexual misconduct toward an employee.

The rulings revived a former lifeguard's lawsuit against Boca Raton, Fla., and kept alive an Illinois woman's lawsuit against her former employer.

The court's decision in the Illinois case conceivably could aid Paula Jones' effort to revive her sexual-harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. In the Illinois case, the woman's supervisor threatened retaliation if she didn't grant sexual favors, but it turned out to be an empty threat.

The court also ruled that sex-harassment law no longer will rely heavily on the differences between "hostile-environment" and "quid pro quo" cases, most vividly illustrated by the supervisor who tells an employee, "Sleep with me or else."

Calling the two terms "of limited utility," the court said such a supervisor's threat - if it proves to be an empty one - can be a hostile-environment form of harassment that could leave an unknowing employer liable.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented. Thomas objected to applying the rule even if the employer has a policy against sexual harassment, and the employee never reports the misconduct to a superior.