View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/24/2006 9:24:02 PM
From: mph	of 541330

-Labor and Employment Law- Where terms of plaintiff’s employment required her to transcribe sexually oriented jokes and discussions related to the creation of a television situation comedy featuring sexual themes, and where such jokes and discussions included sexually coarse and vulgar language that included discussion of the writers’ own sexual experiences but, for the most part, did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or that the comments were severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that was hostile or abusive to plaintiff in violation of the FEHA. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions - filed April 20, 2006 _________________________________________________ The foregoing is a blurb describing the CA Supreme Court's recent decision in the so-called Friends case. The "FEHA" refers to the State's Fair Employment and Housing statutory scheme. The majority opinion did not reach the First Amendment issues. They decided the case on the narrow issue of whether the plaintiff was subjected to the offending conduct because of her sex. This case made the news at each step in the proceedings. I always figured the Court would find against the plaintiff. The question was whether the First Amendment aspect would be addressed. IMO, there is always a tension between protected speech and the sensibilities of others. It's also interesting that the subject matter of Friends was so highly sexually charged. (I haven't watched it since the first season,so didn't keep up.) Here the creative process that purportedly lead to the complaint was claimed to be the springboard for what ultimately appeared on national TV. (I did think some of that was a stretch.) It's somewhat ironic that we as a society are so free in our discussion of sexual topics and the use of sometimes vulgar language in the entertainment field and outside the work environment, yet cases of sexual harassment in the workplace often present circumstances far less over-the-top in terms of sexual content. This case was noteworthy due to the intersection between the "real world" and the workplace.. I thought it might be interesting to this thread because it is an example of the difficulty of accommodating diverse interests. The Court also declined to tackle the larger issue of First Amendment rights. Here's a few articles commenting on the decision: marketwatch.com chicagotribune.com cnn.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next