Lewinsky Could Reappear in Jones Appeal

A federal appeals court panel, hearing arguments Tuesday on whether to reinstate Paul Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton, suggested that his affair with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky might have to be part of a reconstituted case.

Although the judges did not tip their hands on whether they favored reinstituting Jones’ lawsuit against the president, they questioned a federal district judge’s ruling earlier this year that Clinton’s dealings with Lewinsky were not relevant to Jones’ complaint.

The judges’ emphasis on the Lewinsky matter could spell trouble for the president. If the panel orders the Jones lawsuit to be reinstated, the revived case against Clinton could be stronger than the original, which was dismissed in April by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark.

Asked by Judge Pasco M. Bowman whether Lewinsky was not part of “a pattern and practice” of the president’s conduct, Clinton attorney Amy Sabrin acknowledged that if Jones’ case goes to trial, the Lewinsky matter “could become an issue.”

Judge C. Arlen Beam said testimony about Lewinsky might be considered by a jury “as similar conduct” by Clinton.

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton in 1994 alleging that the then-Arkansas governor summoned her to his room in a Little Rock hotel in 1991 and crudely asked her to perform oral sex. In dismissing the case, Wright said Jones’ attorneys had failed to prove that Clinton’s alleged advance constituted sexual assault or that Jones was punished in the workplace for rebuffing it.

Although Clinton’s lawyers praised the dismissal as proper and legally correct, Jones’ attorneys appealed the ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here. The court, which has jurisdiction over a broad Midwestern region that includes Arkansas, is expected to rule on the case by the end of the year.

The Jones case has dogged Clinton for four years and it spawned the investigation that threatens to end his presidency. It was in his deposition in the Jones case in January that Clinton denied having “sexual relations” with Lewinsky.

In August, the president admitted that he had had an “inappropriate relationship” with her. Earlier this month the House of Representatives voted to investigate whether Clinton should be impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering in the matter.

James A. Fisher, arguing on behalf of Jones, said he would like to have authority from the court to collect more evidence about the Lewinsky matter to demonstrate for jurors that it is highly relevant to Jones’ case.

He declared that a close friend of Clinton’s, Washington attorney Vernon E. Jordan Jr., helped Lewinsky find a better job after she performed sexual favors for the president.

“She [Lewinsky] consented to his advances and she got the job benefit,” Fisher said.

Jones and her lawyers have argued that because she rejected Clinton’s advance, subsequently she was given less responsibility in her job for a state commission.

“I think we all agree that Paula Jones would have a solid gold case, as a state employee, if she had performed oral sex on the governor,” Fisher told the judges. “Why should she have a weaker case because she rejected him?”

But, Judge Donald R. Ross interjected, “I think there’s some question as to who made the first advance,” Clinton or Lewinsky.

Clinton has denied propositioning Jones and his attorneys have said state records show she continued to get merit raises and cost-of-living pay increases after the alleged encounter.

Fisher declared that Clinton had engaged in “perjury, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury” in denying sexual conduct with Lewinsky when questioned under oath by Jones’ lawyers. He asked the appeals court to “send a clear message” that this will not be permitted, by reinstating Jones’ lawsuit.

Clinton attorney Sabrin noted that the president has denied such crimes.

Sabrin also declared that in the alleged Clinton-Jones encounter there was “no physical force, rape, assault--none of those physical factors” that courts sometimes have found to constitute isolated acts of sexual harassment.

“She said she wanted to leave [the hotel room] and she left,” Sabrin said of Jones.

The judges asked Sabrin “how severe” harassing conduct must be to constitute harassment and whether Clinton’s alleged conduct could be considered “outrageous.”

Sabrin replied that “isolated conduct generally will not support” a legal finding of sexual harassment and that Clinton’s conduct--even if proved--was isolated.

The panel that conducted Tuesday’s hearing ruled against Clinton in the Jones case two years ago, holding by a 2-1 vote that the president is not shielded from civil litigation while he is in office. In so doing, they overturned Wright.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate judges. In May the high court ruled, 9 to 0, that Clinton did not enjoy “temporary immunity” from the Jones lawsuit.

All three judges on the panel are appointees of Republican administrations. Bowman and Beam were appointed by Ronald Reagan and Ross by Richard Nixon.

After the hearing, chief Clinton lawyer Robert S. Bennett and leading Jones lawyer Donovan Campbell Jr. told reporters they would continue negotiations to try to resolve the case out of court. Jones’ latest offer to settle for $2 million--with half to be paid by a New York real estate tycoon--has been rejected by Bennett.

An ongoing discussion of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is on The Times’ Web site. Go to:

https://www.latimes.com/scandal