Senate OKs Compromise Civil Rights Bill in 93-5 Vote : Legislation: Job bias, sexual harassment measure ends two-year political fight. Bush has pledged to sign it.

Ending an emotional, two-year political and legislative battle between Congress and the White House, the Senate Wednesday night approved by a 93-5 vote a compromise civil rights bill that President Bush has promised to sign.

The hard-won legislation, designed to strengthen laws against job discrimination and to provide new penalties for sexual harassment in the workplace, was sent to the House, where its quick passage by early next week appears assured.

The bill would extend protections against intentional job bias and sexual harassment to Senate employees and White House staff members for the first time, with an extraordinary provision that any senator found guilty of such practices would have to pay damage awards from his or her own pocket.

Nearly everyone--Republicans and Democrats as well as liberals and conservatives--claimed victory after the final roll call. The size of the favorable margin astonished even the bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), who said:

“This is unbelievable--a week ago . . . we were fighting for (a veto-proof) 67 and then the logjam broke.”

Thirty-eight Republicans joined with 55 Democrats to approve the compromise bill, with backers ranging from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) on the right to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) on the left.

Only five conservative GOP lawmakers--Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Dan Coats of Indiana, Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire, Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Steve Symms of Idaho--voted against it. Two Democrats--Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and Sen. Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania--were absent but had been counted in favor of the bill.

Both California senators--Democrat Alan Cranston and Republican John Seymour--voted for passage.

In reaction to strong criticism of Congress for excluding itself from laws that it imposes on others, the bill would set up a Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices to conduct confidential mediation and closed-door hearings into discrimination or harassment complaints against senators. Both the complainant and the accused would have the right of review by the Senate Ethics Committee and the U.S. Court of Appeals here.

Similarly, the same protections would be afforded to the Executive Office of the President as well as to the personal and political staffs of elected state and local officials, who have until now been exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The bill would not cover House employees, who already can take job-related complaints to a special board.

One controversial part of the legislation puts limits on compensatory and punitive damages for women and disabled persons, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000 depending on the size of the firm that employs them. This provision drew strong protests from many senators who pointed out that unlimited damages are available to racial and ethnic minorities under a law passed shortly after the Civil War.

Senate and House leaders, however, promised to take up legislation next year to remove the ceilings on damage awards that have generated strong opposition from women’s groups and civil rights organizations.

The legislation would reverse or modify six 1989 Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the scope of laws against job discrimination and made it more difficult to challenge business practices that allegedly harm women or minority workers.

The high tribunal, of course, eventually may rule on many of the complex provisions in the proposed law and some lawmakers predicted during the debate that the section authorizing judicial review of senators’ and White House employment decisions may be struck down because they believe it violates the separation of powers provided by the Constitution.

Despite the remarkably lopsided Senate vote on what had been a highly controversial civil rights bill, the final day of debate seemed almost desultory because the big breakthrough had occurred when Bush decided to accept a compromise bill.

White House officials acknowledged that the President embraced the compromise because of concern that his veto might not be sustained in the Senate, where GOP support for his hard-line position was declining.

The battle really began in 1990, when Bush vetoed a more far-reaching bill and the Senate failed by a single vote to override. It continued this year as the House defied the President’s continuing veto threats to approve its version of the legislation by a 273-156 vote.

Danforth tried for months to negotiate a compromise with the White House but gave up and decided to push his bill and try to line up the votes of 67 senators, two-thirds of the Senate, to override an expected veto.

Then, in a single day of discussions last Thursday as the Senate was poised to take up the bill, the deep differences were resolved and the President gave his blessing to the compromise.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), however, undoubtedly spoke for many on the Republican side of the aisle when he said: “The compromise is not perfect but it’s the only way out of the civil rights quagmire without resorting to quotas.”

Final passage may or may not end a raging argument over racial preferences in hiring, spurred by Bush’s earlier denunciations of the Danforth measure and its predecessors as “quota” bills that would force employers to hire and promote by race.

Praise for the bill across the political spectrum, however, appeared likely to diminish the possibilities for partisan battles on the civil rights issue in the 1992 campaign.

The provisions that formerly drew the “quota bill” charge from Bush--and heated denials from Danforth and Democratic backers--dealt primarily with employer practices that appear neutral but have a “disparate impact” on job and promotion prospects for women and racial minorities.

Under the bill, employees challenging such practices would have to demonstrate that they have an impact on the work force. Employers would have to carry the burden of proof to establish that the practice is related to the job and consistent with “business necessity,” a much-debated phrase that is not defined in the compromise language.

One example of such practices would be a requirement that janitors have a high school diploma, a provision that could have a larger impact on racial minorities than other groups. Similarly, a height requirement for a job could reduce chances for women applicants.

The bill would provide that an employer could defend a requirement by showing that it is related to job performance and necessary for business operations.

The compromise would modify a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that overturned a unanimous high court decision in 1971 barring job requirements that had a disparate impact and were not otherwise justified.

The compromise also includes another controversial provision that would limit the total of compensatory and punitive damage awards to employees intentionally discriminated against on the basis of sex, disability or religion, or who have been sexually harassed.

Caps would be $50,000 for a firm with 16 to 100 workers, $100,000 for firms with 101 to 200 workers, $200,000 for firms with 201 to 500 workers and $300,000 for firms with 501 or more on the payroll.

Another provision would forbid so-called “race-norming” or adjustment of employment test scores on the basis of race. The bill would apply to discrimination claims of U.S. citizens employed by U.S. companies overseas.

Cutting through the legal jargon, Danforth put it this way: “In 1989 the Supreme Court chose to turn the clock back on civil rights and that never can be allowed to happen. When the clock has been turned back, it’s necessary to turn it forward again.”