Harassment Bill Veto

I would like to comment on the article (Oct. 15) reporting that Gov. Pete Wilson has vetoed a bill that would have significantly increased the range of allowable penalty assessments against any business allowing harassment, of any kind, of women in the workplace. In his veto message Wilson justified his action by stating it would give employees “significant leverage in negotiating a settlement with any employer.” The governor went on to say he feared his signing of such a bill into law would drive businesses out of the state.

It is instructive to compare the conflicting messages he and the Legislature were trying to send to business about how this explosive issue is to be handled. Wilson is saying that he believes the cost of protecting women from harassment in the workplace is too high. The Legislature, on the other hand, is saying that the best way to get the attention of business and bring about reform is to make the cost too high not to institute meaningful reform.

Wilson’s claim that if this bill were to become law business itself would be harassed because it would become victimized by a multitude of frivolous lawsuits suggests he is unaware that it is not only illegal to file a lawsuit found to be frivolous, but that the penalty for doing so is a stiff one.

WILLIAM A. SNELL, Van Nuys