Paula Jones Details Other Alleged Advances by Clinton

Attorneys for Paula Corbin Jones sought to bolster her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Tuesday by detailing other occasions when she claims he made unwanted advances.

Responding to assertions by the president’s lawyer that a “single” act of propositioning Jones in a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room--if true--does not constitute harassment, her attorneys charged in new court papers that Clinton engaged in “clear abuses of power” by making other sexual approaches to her at later times.

Jones previously has mentioned other alleged advances, but they have received little attention alongside the jarring accusation that Clinton exposed himself in a hotel room in 1991 and asked her for oral sex, which she says she refused.

Elaborating on these other alleged instances, Jones’ lawyers said that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, embraced her on a chance meeting in the state Capitol after their initial encounter, asked a state trooper to determine if she would meet him again and once suggested that they were “a couple.”

The filing of the new papers in Little Rock federal court, where the case began in 1994, marked Jones’ answer to Clinton’s request earlier this month that her civil lawsuit be dismissed on grounds it is legally deficient. Clinton has “adamantly” denied Jones’ claim that he propositioned her in a room at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991, during a convention where Jones was working as a state employee.

Attorneys Joseph Cammarata and Gilbert K. Davis, on behalf of Jones, complained that Clinton is trying to “short-circuit” the litigation even though their client has waited more than three years to have her case heard. Clinton succeeded in delaying a trial by claiming that a president should be immune from such a lawsuit, but the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in May that the case could go forward.

In their brief, a copy of which was made available in Washington, Cammarata and Davis charged that “unfortunately the appalling incident in the hotel room does not stand alone.”

“At a later date, the governor engaged in unwelcome physical contact with this state employee, commented on her appearance and falsely suggested that, of all things, she and he were ‘a couple,’ ” the brief said.

“On another occasion, the governor directed an armed state trooper to determine whether plaintiff would meet with the governor while his wife was out of town.”

Clinton’s attorney, Robert S. Bennett, had no immediate comment, his office said. He has until Aug. 15 to file an answer to Jones’ new court papers.

Bennett said in his filing on July 3 that Jones has no legal basis for a claim of sexual harassment because the “alleged conduct is not a deprivation of her constitutional rights” and at no time was she subjected to a “hostile workplace.”

In rebuttal, Jones’ lawyers said Tuesday that her harassment claim is legally “quite sufficient” because Clinton, in allegedly summoning her to his hotel room, was “her ultimate boss” and that “she obeyed, as would any reasonable state employee when summoned by a governor.”

In addition, one of Clinton’s “first acts was to remind her of his authority under state law and that he was her ultimate superior, who is obviously capable of punishing her refusals to do as he wished,” her filing said.

“Courts have consistently held that sexual harassment occurs under color of state law when it is inflicted upon a state employee by another state employee who has supervisory authority or control over the victim,” Jones’ attorneys added.

They alleged that Jones later “suffered adverse employment actions, including being transferred to a dead-end job and loss of expected income, as punishment and as a consequence of her rejection of Mr. Clinton’s sexual advances.”