Same-Sex Harassment

Re “Sexual Harassment Ruling Charts New Legal Frontier,” March 6: Laws making sexual harassment illegal came about as an answer to sexual discrimination toward women, but I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to extend legal consequences of lewd behavior to same-sex offenders.

If someone is sexually manipulated, humiliated or intimidated in the workplace, sexual harassment laws should apply, regardless of gender. Critics of the new law fear a burst of frivolous litigation, similar to the upsurge in sexual harassment suits after the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas case. It is a sad commentary on today’s society when simple matters of human respect have to be settled in court; the law should be modified to weed out the serious cases from the frivolous. Nevertheless, when a person’s basic human rights are so vulgarly violated, the law should strive to protect the victim--regardless of gender.

SORAYA KELLY

Los Angeles

*

Who is to make laws in a democracy? The legislature elected by the people or nine unelected individuals, serving for life, who cannot be overruled on the basis of existing law? It is clear, for example, that James Madison, as well as anyone who expressed himself on the matter at the Constitutional Convention and in the ratification controversy, believed the judiciary would not be concerned with the policy, the reasonableness or arbitrariness, or the wisdom, of legislation.

Nevertheless, The Times in its editorial, “Sense on Sexual Harassment” (March 6), applauds a ruling by Justice Antonin Scalia--supposedly a strict constructionist--which he, himself, acknowledges goes beyond the intent of Congress, whose will “does not matter”! If the social consequences of Scalia’s ruling are so desirable, what prevents Congress from enacting them into law? This is a disgraceful example of “government by judiciary.”

FRANK B. CANNONITO

Irvine

*

Let’s see, I can no longer hug my female employees because that might be same-sex harassment (“Same-Sex Harassment Illegal, Says High Court,” March 5), but the “Sprewell principle” mandates that a violent employee can keep her job if she attacks and strangles me. I guess I’ll have to amend our employee manual to reflect the new policies.

SARAH DOUGLAS

Brentwood