‘Back Pay’ Doesn’t Begin to Be Enough : Discrimination: No matter how awful the offense, victims of gender discrimination can’t sue for damages. The remedy is the civil rights bill of 1991.

Jacqueline Morris endured an extended campaign of sexual harassment that ultimately led her to resign her job as a senior machinist. Her supervisors repeatedly touched her body inappropriately and made sexual remarks to her in front of other employees. Her co-workers routinely placed sexually explicit pictures and objects at her work station. They tampered with and stole her equipment. On one occasion, a urine-like substance was placed in the air line of her compressor.

Morris became emotionally and physically ill because of the daily abuse she faced. As her health deteriorated, she missed several days of work. The company doctor confirmed that her physical problems resulted from conflicts at work. Morris felt she had nowhere to turn; her company had no complaint procedure and her supervisors were among her harassers. The harassment only escalated when she filed an outside complaint. After three years of physical and verbal abuse, she went to court.

The judge held that Morris had indeed been a victim of illegal harassment, that her employer violated the law, and that she consequently became ill and was driven out of her job. But because current law prohibits money damages for sex discrimination, she received only back wages.

Back pay alone did little to compensate for what Morris had suffered physically, emotionally and financially. Her financial situation gave her no choice but to return to her old job. She ended up working next to the supervisor who had harassed her.

The proposed civil-rights bill of 1991 would change the law that kept Jacqueline Morris from seeking damages. At present, sex discrimination in employment is illegal, but its victims may seek only back pay, reinstatement and injunctions. Women cannot pursue compensatory damages (for medical bills or other injuries to the victim) or punitive damages (to punish and deter employers in extreme cases).

Jacqueline Morris is not alone; women all over the country have filed successful suits, but their victories are hollow so long as they cannot seek damages. Here is just a sampling of cases:

-- Shirley Huddleston, a car saleswoman, was sexually harassed by her co-workers and supervisors. The harassment included verbal attacks in front of customers and threats of being stripped.

-- Hortencia Bohen, a fire dispatcher in East Chicago, Ind., “endured extreme and ongoing sexual harassment,” according to the court. She faced unwanted physical contact and verbal harassment, including being told by her supervisor that she needed to be raped in the bushes.

-- Ramona Arnold suffered extensive sexual harassment committed by supervisors and fellow police officers in Seminole, Okla., and endured retaliation after she complained. The court found that she suffered “massive anxiety and depression” and “stroke-level” high blood pressure.

-- Accountant Gail Derr’s supervisor told her that it was “dangerous” for women to get too much education and that she shouldn’t have career ambitions if she had children. He demoted her and was found guilty of sex discrimination.

All of these women proved that they were victims of illegal discrimination and suffered personal and financial injuries. Like all sex-discrimination victims, however, they were prohibited from receiving money damages.

There are arguments that even if women are granted the right to sue for damages, there should be a “cap” on the amount. However, a woman who successfully proves sex discrimination and wins damages should not be held to some arbitrary limit. Race discrimination victims already can seek damages without a cap. Juries have been conservative in most cases but are free to award large settlements if the case warrants it. They should have the same flexibility in sex-bias cases.

A 1991 poll shows that more than two-thirds of Americans support changing the law to permit money damages for sex discrimination. Women need this provision, and the American public supports it.