WORKPLACE LAW - Concerned Employer
Question:
I saw in the news recently that the California Supreme Court has issued a decision saying that sexually explicit comments in the workplace may not constitute harassment. I thought that the rules regarding sexual harassment in California were really strict—how can the Supreme Court be saying that it’s OK for people to use vulgar language and to talk about graphic subject matter at work? As an employer, I am wondering how this decision affects my responsibility to maintain a harassment-free workplace.
Answer:
The decision you are referring to is the April 20, 2006 California Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, which has come to be known in the media as “the Friends case.” This case involved a woman, Amaani Lyle, who was hired by Warner Brothers to be a comedy writers’ assistant on the production of the Friends television show. Ms. Lyle claimed that in the course of her job, she was forced to listen to inappropriate sexual comments and discussions during the writers’ meetings. Ms. Lyle alleged that the writers’ use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct constituted sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The Court found that the conduct Ms. Lyle had been exposed to was not sexual harassment under FEHA. It ruled that the writers’ vulgar comments were not aimed directly at Ms. Lyle and that she therefore did not have an actionable claim based on their behavior. The Court also found that the conduct was not “severe and pervasive” enough to have created a hostile work environment for Ms. Lyle.
This decision may seem surprising, especially in light of California’s strict rules regarding unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace. However, it is important to note that the Court was not simply giving license for workplace vulgarity, but was instead making the distinction between conduct that is legally actionable and that which is not. While the behavior complained about in the Friends case was admittedly sexual and graphic in nature, the Court felt that it was not sufficiently objectionable to create a cause of action as far as Ms. Lyle was concerned. However, the Court specifically stated that the writers’ behavior and comments—in another setting and/or under different circumstances—might easily have constituted actionable harassment. The point of the Court’s ruling seems to be that, in any given situation, the particular facts and circumstances involved may determine how one’s behavior is interpreted.
Even though the Friends case might appear to say that workplace vulgarity is sometimes permissible, as an employer it is still important that you maintain a strictly harassment and discrimination-free work environment. As you know, California employers are required to provide a safe workplace for their employees, which includes a workplace that is free from unlawful harassment and/or discrimination based upon any protected characteristic. Those characteristics include, among others, sex, gender, age, race, national origin, and religion. Employers in California must also have in place a comprehensive reporting procedure for any employee who feels they have experienced or witnessed unlawful harassment and/or discrimination, and which guarantees their right to make such a complaint. These policies ensure that employees will be able to report any potentially unlawful conduct without fear of punishment or retaliation. While the Friends holding may be significant in other respects, it does not change any these requirements.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Back to Menu- Work Place Law 2006 Articles