Women’s Rights Cases Rise to Top at High Court : Law: Issues range from abortion clinic blockades to gender bias. Experts predict newly arrived Justice Ginsburg will have a big impact on colleagues.

If last year was the “year of the woman” in U.S. politics, the coming year may prove to be the year of the woman at the Supreme Court.

The high court opens its fall term today facing at least four key cases involving women’s rights, ranging from abortion clinic blockades to the more subtle issue of the constitutional status of gender discrimination.

On the bench will be one of the nation’s premier women’s rights advocates, new Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Formerly the director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project during the 1970s, Ginsburg is the first Democratic appointee to join the court in 26 years and only the second woman to serve there.

Although the court docket is thinner than in years past, its emphasis should suit its newest member.

“When I began my legal career, we were reading the cases (challenging sex discrimination) that she was bringing to the court,” said Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women. “Everything we know about her indicates she will make a real difference” in pressing for women’s rights.

No significant cases involving women’s rights came before Ginsburg during the 12 years she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But before that, while she was an advocate for women’s rights, she urged the Supreme Court to rule that official discrimination based on gender, just as in racial bias, was absolutely unconstitutional.

While the court moved far in that direction, it stopped short of such an all-out ruling. Now it will get another chance in a November case involving jury selection.

Before a 1991 trial in a paternity case, Alabama prosecutors moved to exclude all men from the jury pool. The state Supreme Court, upholding that form of systematic discrimination, concluded that while racial bias in selecting jurors was clearly unconstitutional, gender bias was not.

During her Senate confirmation hearings, Ginsburg reiterated her view that courts should use the same strict standard in judging bias, whether because of gender or race.

For only the second time ever, the justices will hear a sexual harassment case, this time seeking to clarify when an employer’s offensive behavior crosses the line to become illegal harassment.

In Teresa Harris’ case, everyone seems to agree that her employer’s behavior was offensive. The U.S. magistrate who heard her claim concluded that Charles Hardy, her supervisor, was a “vulgar man” who was often “demeaning” to women and at times “truly gross.”

Nonetheless, he concluded that Harris had not suffered sexual harassment because her employer’s behavior was not “so severe as to . . . seriously affect her psychological well-being.”

A panel of three appellate judges upheld that conclusion last year without writing an opinion in the case. But the justices agreed to hear the woman’s appeal in Harris vs. Forklift Systems on Oct. 13.

Women’s rights leaders are optimistic that, with Ginsburg on the bench, the high court will see the issue in a different light.

The male judges who heard Harris’ sexual-harassment claim in the lower courts “seemed to take the view that unless you are driven out of your mind, you haven’t suffered sexual harassment,” Ireland said.

In their briefs to the court, women’s rights groups, joined by the Clinton Administration, urge the justices to rule that sexual comments are illegal if they are so offensive and so common that they make it difficult for a woman to do her job.

The court must also decide this term whether the 1991 Civil Rights Act applies to cases that were in the pipeline when the bill became law. The legal issue came to the court in a case that involved sexual harassment.

In May, 1991, a judge in Texas concluded that Barbara Landgraf had been sexually harassed on the job but said that she was not entitled to damages under the law as it stood then. Five months later, however, the new law took effect and provided for damages in such cases.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that the new law did not apply retroactively to Landgraf’s case. The George Bush Administration agreed with that conclusion, but the Clinton Administration urged the justices, in the case of Landgraf vs. USI Film Products, to extend the law to cover the thousands of pending cases.

The justices will also revisit the issue of abortion clinic blockades.

Last year, the justices ruled that clinic operators cannot use the old Ku Klux Klan Act against those who conspire to prevent women from getting abortions. That decision came on a 5-4 vote, with now-retired Justice Byron R. White--whom Ginsburg replaced--in the majority.

In December, the court will consider whether the far-reaching federal anti-racketeering law can be used against protesters who block clinics. That measure, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, authorizes damage suits against those who use threats and extortion to prey on legitimate businesses.

Lawyers for NOW say anti-abortion zealots do just that when they block clinic entrances or raid the facilities. But a federal appeals court in Chicago threw out their suit on the grounds that the protesters do not act with an “economic motive.”

The outcome in the case, NOW vs. Scheidler, will affect not only abortion cases but also the government’s pursuit of radical terrorists. Prosecutors say they want to bring criminal racketeering suits against terrorists who operate in this country, but they will be blocked from doing so if the law applies only to criminal acts that have an “economic motive.”

Waiting on the court’s appeal docket are two other potentially significant women’s rights cases. Fifty-five women’s groups have joined an appeal by a woman who was denied a law firm partnership based on a “subjective evaluation” by a male-dominated committee. The appeal contends that the court should hear the case of Ezold vs. Wolf, Block to examine the issue of discrimination against professional women seeking promotions.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates are urging the court to review a Mississippi law that requires teen-age girls to get the consent of both parents for an abortion.

Last year, an opinion for the court by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said states cannot put an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, and the appeal in Barnes vs. Mississippi contends that the state law does just that.

Many legal experts are predicting that, although most new justices spend their first year submerged under their heavy work load, Ginsburg will have an immediate impact on the court.

Rutgers University law professor Frank Askin said that her deep experience as an appeals court judge, courtroom lawyer and law professor, combined with her “quiet persuasiveness,” could influence her colleagues.

And the lineup of cases this fall plays to Ginsburg’s strengths.

“I don’t think this will be a difficult year for her,” Georgetown University law professor Thomas Krattenmaker said. “It is as if this term were especially made for someone like Ruth Ginsburg.”

Other Cases Before Supreme Court

Among the high-impact cases on the high court’s docket:

* Voting rights: Must the state seek to create enough safe seats for Latino and black candidates equal to the percentage of Latinos and blacks statewide? The case could have an impact on electoral districts in California. (U.S. vs. Florida, to be argued today)

* Copyright: Does a music group infringe a copyright if it parodies a hit song? Yes, said an appeals court in ruling against the rap group 2 Live Crew and its take-off on Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman.” (Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose, to be argued Nov. 9)

* Schools: Must the public schools pay the cost when parents of a learning-disabled child enroll him in a private school? Yes, said a South Carolina judge, citing the federal law on educating disabled students. (Florence County vs. Carter, to be argued Wednesday)

* Forfeiture: Must the government give a property owner a full hearing before it confiscates his property? Yes, said a federal appeals court. (U.S. vs. Good, to be argued Wednesday)

* Airports: May air carriers challenge municipal fees as unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce? The answer could affect the dispute over fees at Los Angeles International Airport. (Northwest Airlines vs. Kent, Mich., to be argued in December)

Source: Times Washington Bureau