A former "Friends" writer's assistant sues claiming sexual harassment; writers claim "creative necessity"
I looked into this topic for my research paper a few weeks back, and Professor Prenkert informed me that the court had reached a decision recently. He suggested sharing the information with everyone, and I would love to hear your thoughts on this case.
Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of three different writers of the "Friends" TV series who were charged with sexual harassment by a former writer's assistant. The assistant claimed that the writer's lewd behavior in the workplace in writing for the show should be considered sexual harassment. Examples of the writer's behavior include consistent talk about oral and anal sex, passing around inappropriate "coloring books," changing wording in the script to inappropriate words, and pretending to masturbate. The writers stated that it was a "creative necessity" and a crucial part of the creative process to be able to discuss sexually explicit topics due to the nature of the show. They stated that these behaviors and comments often led to material for the show. Apparently, the court agreed with the idea that their actions are excusable due to the nature of the show and the "creative necessity" of it. Also, they stated that the plaintiff was warned at the beginning of employment that she would be exposed to sexually vulgar topics. Finally, another reason that they ruled in favor of the writers is because, as one justice stated, that "Most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace," Baxter said.
The specifics of this case can be found here or by searching for "Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions."
I am just curious as to everyone's overall thoughts on this case. Also, some specific questions I am interested in finding out are:
Do you agree with the court--should "creative necessity" be allowed?
If so, then, how far is too far?
What constitutes a "creative" workplace and makes the behavior ok in some instances, but not in others?
Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of three different writers of the "Friends" TV series who were charged with sexual harassment by a former writer's assistant. The assistant claimed that the writer's lewd behavior in the workplace in writing for the show should be considered sexual harassment. Examples of the writer's behavior include consistent talk about oral and anal sex, passing around inappropriate "coloring books," changing wording in the script to inappropriate words, and pretending to masturbate. The writers stated that it was a "creative necessity" and a crucial part of the creative process to be able to discuss sexually explicit topics due to the nature of the show. They stated that these behaviors and comments often led to material for the show. Apparently, the court agreed with the idea that their actions are excusable due to the nature of the show and the "creative necessity" of it. Also, they stated that the plaintiff was warned at the beginning of employment that she would be exposed to sexually vulgar topics. Finally, another reason that they ruled in favor of the writers is because, as one justice stated, that "Most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace," Baxter said.
The specifics of this case can be found here or by searching for "Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions."
I am just curious as to everyone's overall thoughts on this case. Also, some specific questions I am interested in finding out are:
Do you agree with the court--should "creative necessity" be allowed?
If so, then, how far is too far?
What constitutes a "creative" workplace and makes the behavior ok in some instances, but not in others?
posted by Anonymous at
12:41 AM
0 Comments
