|
|
|
|
|
        |
|
|
 |
JUDICIAL UPDATES Sexual Banter in Workplace Does Not Always Support a Harassment Claim The California Supreme Court has finally issued its decision in the much anticipated “Friends” case. In Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, the court held that occasional sexual banter in the workplace may not give rise to liability if the joking and other conduct are not directed at the plaintiff’s sexuality. The plaintiff (“Employee”) was a comedy writer’s assistant who worked on production of the “Friends” television program. When she was hired, the Employee was told that preparing the show’s scripts often involved jokes and comments about sexual matters; she responded that she would be comfortable with such joking. Throughout her employment, the Employee, as part of her work, attended meetings in which the show’s writers described their sexual experiences, fantasies and preferences. These writers sometimes made explicit drawings and pantomimed sexual gestures. They also sexually denigrated one of the show’s actresses. The evidence established that this behavior also occurred in the hallways of the workplace. Importantly, at no time did any person make a sexual comment about the Employee, or sexually proposition her in any way. The California Supreme Court upheld summary judgment in favor of the Employer. The law requires a plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit to show that the conduct at issue was not “merely tinged” with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted discrimination because of sex. An unlawful, hostile work environment is not established where a supervisor or co-worker uses crude or inappropriate language (or engages in similar conduct) without directing sexual innuendos or gender-related language toward the plaintiff or toward women in general. The Lyle case will likely provide very good support to defendants who seek summary judgment on various types of harassment lawsuits. However, employers should keep in mind that its holding addresses a specific factual scenario. The case does not stand for the proposition that sexual banter in the workplace is acceptable, or that such banter could never result in liability. All employers should continue efforts to prevent sexual jokes, banter and language in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
