编者按：相信各位朋友一定都观赏过美剧《波士顿法律》(Boston Legal, “BL”)，该剧被认为是美国有史以来最经典的律政剧。笔者早年观赏此剧时，对于每集的结案陈词(Closing Argument)印象很深，叹为观止，认为是绝佳的美国法律及法律英语学习素材；不仅如此，如果能把Boston Legal 5季共101集的剧本(有下载)，当作红宝书一样看熟并记忆，相信我们的英语口语和写作水平都会有一个质的飞跃。As such, let’s appreciate BL’s fantastic closing arguments herefrom.
奕英社法律人传媒| EliteBase Legal Media
All Rights Reserved
Boston Legal
Catch and Release
Season 1, Episode 3 (首播:2004-10-17)
Facts: 证券经纪公司已婚女副总裁Wendy Moore 被迫辞去工作，她声称原因是公司总裁Daniel Ralston对有夫之妇的她不断进行性暗示，并对其名誉造成了影响。 Wendy决定以职场性骚扰为由起诉Daniel。Alan Shore代理原告Wendy，Alan的前妻Christine Pauley代理被告Daniel。两人结案陈词各有千秋。
Issue: Whether Mr Ralston’s post-end-of-affair pursuit of Ms Moore has constituted sexual harassment against Ms Moore at work place?(男老板在与女下属affiair结束后，对于女下属的持续追求是否构成职场性骚扰？)
Closing Argument
Alan Shore on behalf of Plaintiff
Some people simply cannot let go. You love a person so desperately. You perhaps begin to lose sight of reason. And you begin to act unreasonably, perhaps outof control, even. It’s possible Daniel Ralston had no control over his behavior. Maybe he truly couldn’t stop pursuing Wendy Moore. Maybe he had to keep calling. Had to schedule those lunches. Had to seemingly stalk her, if you will. He was in love with her. People in love lose their grip. But what’s at issue here is her state of mind. Her mental state. Not Mr. Ralston’s state of mind. But Wendy’s. Was she reasonably upset by this relentless pursuit? She’s a married woman with a family, trying to salvage her marriage and her boss keeps calling. Keeps coming. Keeps coming. Keeps propositioning her. The fact that she once loved this man only makes it worse. More difficult. What choice did she really have but to leave? Maybe that was his plan all the time. He knew he couldn’t fire her. Maybe that was his psychological game. Wherethe only thing she could really do in the end was get in her car, and drive off. He created a hostile working environment with repeated, unwelcomed sexual advances, ladies and gentlemen. That is prima facie classic sexual harassment (prima facie case: 初步证明的案件，指原告提出的证据足以支持其诉讼请求，从而可以将案件交付陪审团裁断).
Alan Shore: 有些人会看不开，当你深爱一个人，你可能就会失去理性，变得荒唐，甚至失控。Daniel Ralston就可能控制不住自己的行为，或许他真的情不自禁想追求Wendy Moore，或许他必须不断的打电话安排那些午餐，如果可能还想跟踪她，因为他深爱着她。人陷入爱河就会疯狂，但问题在于她，她的精神状态，不是Mr. Ralston的，而是Wendy的。她活该被这种无理的追求骚扰吗? 她只是个在尝试挽回婚姻的女人，而她的上司三番五次的骚扰，不放过她，她的确曾经爱过这个男人，却只让情况更糟，除了离开她还有什么选择? 这可能从头到底都是他的计划，他知道他没权解雇她，于是他玩起了心理游戏，她要结束纠缠的唯一选择就是—上车，然后走人。他这种无休止的令人厌恶的性暗示进犯，制造出了敌意的工作环境，这就是最典型的足以有证据支持的性骚扰行为。
Christine Pauley on behalf of Defendant
Love happens in the workplace all the time. In fact, it’s where most affairs start. Most relationships. It happens. So do breakups. As a woman, I am offended by the onslaught of these lawsuits. As neutral as the language may be, sexual harassment law is gender biased. It exists to protect woman. It feeds into the perception that women are weaker than men. It goes all the wayback to common law where women were denied the right to enter into contracts because we lacked mental capacity. Today’s harassment law is designed to protect us from sexual banter in the workplace because we just can’t take it. I cantake it. Can you? Can you? Do we really need to cleanse the workplace of all sexual expression so that it’ll be safe for us? These laws treat us as if we were either psychologically or emotionally impaired. And I’m sick of it. Are some cases legitimate? Absolutely. But here, this woman is a grown up. She entered into an adult consensual relationship with her boss. It ended. Perhaps bumpy. He’s hurt. He’s still in love. So she sues. She wasn’t fired. She is a college-educated vice president of a brokerage firm. She’s 34 years old. She’s a professional. She’s here today to tell you that she can’t stick up for herself. She is here today trying to take advantage of a law that declares women to be the weaker sex. Not for me, ladies and gentlemen. I wouldn’t have gotten in my car and driven off. I’d have sooner driven over him. Let’s treatthese people—both of them— as if they were grown-ups.
Christine Pauley: 工作场所总有着爱情，可以说是大多数婚外情的发源地，这很正常，分手也是。作为女性，我厌恶这样的诉讼，中立的说，现今的性骚扰法例带有性别偏见，它的存在是为了保护女性，给人的感觉就是女性是弱者。所有这些可以追溯到早期普通法，女性由于心智上的缺陷而不具有参与订立契约的行为能力。性骚扰法例是为了保护我们在工作场所不受骚扰，因为觉得我们不能忍受，可我能忍受。你能吗?你呢?我们真的需要一个无性别(意思)表示的工作环境? 那我们就安全了?这些法例认定我们在心理和感情上都是弱者，我很厌恶这样。有些案子的确伸张了正义，肯定有，但这个案子，这位女士是成年人，她和上司有了一段你情我愿的关系，最后不欢而散，他受到了伤害，却仍爱着她，她却因此而告他。她没有被解雇，她受过高等教育，是公司副总裁，她三十四岁，是一名专业人士。她今天来告诉你们，她不能保护自己，她是在利用法律的漏洞达成她自己的目的，宣称女性是两性关系中弱势一方。我可不是，各位，我不会开车走人，我会开车撞死他。请把这些人--他们双方，真正当作成年人来看待。
Jury Decision
in favor of Plaintiff; $125,000 damages awarded to Plaintiff.
***
EliteBase Legal Media
___________________________
( “德国民法典学习小组”微信公众号系奕英社法律人传媒旗下品牌（点击上方蓝色字体“德国民法典学习小组” 或者搜索微信号“BGB-ChinaStudyGroup”订阅）；并请转发给您的同学、朋友、同事等，及在朋友圈分享，谢谢！有兴趣加入本学习小组微信群的朋友，可先添加该群管理员微信“baiyuanzhiwang”。如果您有好文章和素材愿与分享，请电邮至：joe.wang061110@gmail.com谢谢!)
