I just heard on the news about a young woman litigating against Warner Brothers for, among other things, sexual harassment. Here Is a link to the story. Were these writers really harassing the young woman, or were they merely doing what they needed to get their creative juices flowing? (hope I didn't harass anyone by the term "juices flowing")
Personally I think the term sexual harassment is over-used but I can also understand the woman's distaste for some of the writer's behaviour. What do you all think? Is this sexual harassment?
[ December 21, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by blackcatwings (Member # 7077) on :
I think that the things they were talking about were disgusting but i don't think they were really sexual harrasment.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I have to wonder if this woman ever actually watched freinds.
Posted by blackcatwings (Member # 7077) on :
No kidding. That's pretty much the theme of the entire show.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
You know what's one of my major pet-pevs... People who are always suing over stupid things (like when there dog gets loose, attacks a neighbors cat, and gets shot)
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: No kidding. That's pretty much the theme of the entire show.
What the writers said/did/showed was more explicit than anything on Friends.
[ December 21, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by blackcatwings (Member # 7077) on :
I think that's why people are so paranoid. I wish people had a little bit more dignity. Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Eh, guys? Did you read the entire article? I'm as much against frivolous lawsuits as the next person, but if the allegations are acurate (and the defendants admit to at least some of them) the woman definitely has a case. Their excuse that they needed to discuss which cast member they'd prefer to have anal sex with as part of the "creative process" sounds like horse manure to me.
Posted by blackcatwings (Member # 7077) on :
I hate it when people talk like that, but i would've just looked for another job or told them to try and keep it a little more PG13.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
If she brought a charge of boorish depravity I might be more sympathetic. I just can't correlate this with harassment. Were they specifically doing this to embarass or humiliate this woman? To me that's the question, not that their behaviour was insensitive or gross.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Their puerile behaviour created a work environment that she shouldn't have to put up with. It doesn't say whether she complained before she was fired, but really, the comments appear to have been such that any reasonable person would realise that they were not appropriate for a work place. They may not have been directed specifically at her (that we know of), but the fact that she were forced to listen to them is enough to classify the situation as sexual harrassment, at least in my book.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Hence my statement in the original post that the term sexual harassment is over-used.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What a bunch of immature morons, but, considering the quality of FRIENDS, what is to be expected? But, still, if they are in the work place, they should not act like that towards her and it serves them right if she takes most of their money. Dang, no wonder most of the shows suck.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
*Shrugs*
Sexual harassment is a legal term for what society has deemed sexually unacceptable behaviour at a work place. The concept has been developed with time. If some people feel that the term only ought to apply to unwanted groping or sexual insults against a targetted individual, that really has nothing to do with how it's treated as a legal concept nowadays.
quote:Legal Definitions of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a legal term, created for the purpose of ending harassment and discrimination against women in the workplace. The term is constantly being redefined and extended in legislation and court decisions. However, not all sexual behavior in the workplace is harassment, and the laws against sexual harassment do not extend to situations outside the workplace or school.
The basic definition of sexual harassment comes from the United Stated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
This definition has been further elaborated:
Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. * The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. * The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. * Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. * The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
Fair enough, I suppose their behaviour could qualify for the LEGAL definition although I still object to bringing suit against someone for boorish behaviour especially if that person has no direct control or obvious power over the complainee.
Here's a question; what precludes any employee of the porn industry from filing similar lawsuits for the environment in their day-to-day workplace?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I think we all agree that the actions were stupid and boorish. The jury's still out on whether this constitutes sexual harassment, though Tristan's definition seems to indicate it does. The really debatable question, in my book, is whether this work environment was necessary for the creative process. I don't think that we can truly answer that question. Let me explain:
Friends was a very successful show. Whether or not it was good or bad doesn't affect the profit it made for the network. The writers were partly responsible for the show's success, therefore you can say that they did their jobs well. They can argue that their success was a result of the "creative environment" that they enjoyed while at work, peurile though it may be. Who can argue otherwise? There is no way to prove that they would have been as successful writers if they had been required to limit their brainstorming sessions to PG-13 language and dialog. No matter how many examples you bring up of equally successful shows with more mature writing teams, they can always argue that their creative process is different, and therefore has different needs, thus rendering it "necessary" to engage in such crass behavior.
-
-
-
BTW, mone of this changes the fact that I am personally appalled by the work environment mentioned by the plaintiff and feel very sorry for her for having to put up with the crap.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The article mentions Sex and the City. Could a female set worker sue because one of Kim Catrall's slutty nude scenes created a "hostile enviroment"?
I'd just like to know the bounderies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It actually seems self-evident to me that, in this case, necessity is not invoked -- and once necessity is removed, we're looking at a pretty clear case of harassment. I've fired people for screensavers; expecting an administrative assistant to transcribe anal sex fantasies about a co-worker falls way outside the pale.
The defendants argue that it was necessary for them to engage in explicit sex talk not because they intended to use any of those lines or jokes in the show, but because it was an essential part of "warming up" to the creative process. Sadly, I doubt they are capable of proving this claim.
[ December 21, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Legal question: do the defendants have to prove that it was necessary, or do they simply have to prevent the plaintiff from being able to prove that it was unneccessary? If it is the latter, then the plaintiff will have a very tough time, for reasons mentioned above.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
This was known as the "random third party rule" when I worked in the tutorial center at a community college. We were informed that we could not say anything that might be offensive if taken out of context by a third party who happend to be passing by. So the majority of the tutors talked it over and decided that we couldn't tutor anything anymore if that rule were to be strictly enforced. Because, really, anything could be taken out of context and considered offensive by someone.
And, to prove that they were serious about the rule, one of the non-student employees in the center got brought up on sexual harassment charges because her boyfriend kissed her on the cheek before he left after visiting her at work one day. Further, she was not allowed to know who the accuser was. We figured it out anyway - it was one of the other non-student employess who was jealous of the relationship - even though she (the accuser) was married.
And this is why I am skeptical of sexual harassment rules in the workplace. Stupid crap like this is taken seriously, but real harassment often gets swept under the rug because of who the harasser is and who they are harassing.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
This is what bothers me as well. The legal definition seems overly inclusive. When someone that has no direct control or an ability to imply a threat makes an insensitve, crass, or disgusting remark I can simply assign that person to my list of idiots that I don't respect. Why should I be able to litigate for boorishness?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This case is b.s..
First, it happened on private property. The owners of that property should be able to define what is and is not acceptable speech. To put it another way, should society be able to dictate to Orson that his policies on speech on this site are wrong?
Secondly, this speech was not done *at* the woman, or *about* the woman, but about other people. I think this is an important point. If we find the things people talk about offensive not because they are directed at us, but merely for what is being said, then this is the problem for that person who has adopted whatever beliefs that make that speech insulting.
Finally, appeals to law don't a rhetorical argument make. If the law is saying that this is sexual harrasment, then the law is an ass.
Suits like this place speech everywhere, public and private, at the mercy of the weak minded and oversensitive and overzealous crusaders. The article itself is rife with hyperfeminist bs. What a load of poo.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
uh, I'd have to sue 99% of my company, men and women both.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Kama, lewd comments tend to follow you around. I wonder why.
Saturday Night Live must have one of the most ribald writing sessions in television. Every other episode of that show makes references to "whores" or "skanks". I wonder how Tina Fey deals with the whole thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Stupid crap like this is taken seriously..."
Just to clarify, you're saying that filing a sexual harassment suit because someone else was kissed by her boyfriend is stupid, right? Because the court would agree with you.
I would disagree, however, that filing a sexual harassment suit because you were forced to transcribe deliberately rude, vulgar, and exaggerated sexual fantasies about coworkers is equally stupid.
[ December 22, 2004, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Number one, how was she forced?
Number two, what actual harm resulted from her transcribing things that she found offensive such that she needs to be awarded any money? If someone is injured on the job because a company is negligent, I can see monies being awarded for loss of livelihood, lost wages, compensation for medical bills, etc. But awarding money for hurt feelings? Are you kidding? Are we saying that this person has really been injured in some fashion such that she *needs* recompense?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Number one, how was she forced?"
It was a condition of her job, as I understand it: "you sit here, and write down everything we say as we say it." To not do this would have meant she could not retain the job, which is the definition of "forced" used in this case.
"Number two, what actual harm resulted from her transcribing things that she found offensive such that she needs to be awarded any money?"
Ah. So you question the very existence of harassment claims, then? That since only feelings were hurt, no harm worth mentioning was done?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Number one, how was she forced?"
It was a condition of her job, as I understand it: "you sit here, and write down everything we say as we say it." To not do this would have meant she could not retain the job, which is the definition of "forced" used in this case.
Well, it's the definition of 'forced' you are using. Unless that job was the only job she could get, the definition of 'forced' you are using doesn't make sense.
Did she look for another job while she was there that was more suitable for her temperment? We don't know from the article. However, given that she didn't bring her suit until after she was fired, and the fact that the rest of her suit was dismissed, seems to indicate that she is just trying to get a little revenge to me.
But let's say that you are right and that she had nowhere else to go and procede to your next statement.
quote: "Number two, what actual harm resulted from her transcribing things that she found offensive such that she needs to be awarded any money?"
Ah. So you question the very existence of harassment claims, then? That since only feelings were hurt, no harm worth mentioning was done?
Maybe you can answer my question first, eh? I am questioning this harassment claim for reasons that I've already stated. No conversation was directed at her, or about her race, or about women in general! Her sole reason for being 'harassed' is that she found the content of their conversation offensive. Again, what purpose is served by awarding her money? Why can she not just ignore what they are saying and do her job?
[ December 22, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Unless that job was the only job she could get, the definition of 'forced' you are using doesn't make sense."
To use another definition of "forced" would invalidate all sexual harassment claims. After all, if someone's boss is feeling her up, she doesn't have to tolerate it; she could find another job.
But the point of sexual harassment legislation is that people should not feel like they need to find another job simply because their coworkers can't behave themselves.
"Why can she not just ignore what they are saying and do her job?"
Her argument is that her job was to write down work-related material. Their comments were unnecessary, by this logic. You may as well ask whether a woman in an office of all men should ignore the nude and semi-nude screensavers those men choose to put on their computers, because those screensavers don't do anything more than hurt her feelings and make her feel uncomfortable.
[ December 22, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Word.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: You may as well ask whether a woman in an office of all men should ignore the nude and semi-nude screensavers those men choose to put on their computers, because those screensavers don't do anything more than hurt her feelings and make her feel uncomfortable.
That's what I do (ignore them). Or sometimes stab back by putting up an all-male calendar (nothing too risque though)
FG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure if creative necessity would be an affirmative offense, meaning the defendant would have to prove it, or if it would be up to the plaintiff to prove it did not exist once the defendants produced the defense.
Either way, a case can easily be made that they had to talk about things that would not be included in shows. I bet this wins eventually. It may not even get to a jury.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's what I do (ignore them)."
Yes, you COULD do that. But the great thing about living in a modern society is that you don't have to feel like you have to do that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Either way, a case can easily be made that they had to talk about things that would not be included in shows."
The problem, Dag, is that this can too easily be extended to almost all forms of creative endeavor -- as well as less creative ones. What if a top-notch lawyer makes the argument that he has to leave pubic hairs on his assistant's soda cans because that kind of puerile humor is necessary to get his legal juices flowing? After all, how can we possibly argue that this ISN'T true?
A construction worker could very easily claim that patting the butt of the attractive on-site claims worker is the only thing that keeps him going in the morning. What if that's really the case?
If we're going to make arguments about "necessity," what about "creative endeavor" makes it such a unique field that we become unqualified to determine what behaviors -- even if not intrinsic to the final output -- are still necessary? I think it's fairly clear that we need to draw the line rather narrowly on this one.
[ December 22, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "Unless that job was the only job she could get, the definition of 'forced' you are using doesn't make sense."
To use another definition of "forced" would invalidate all sexual harassment claims. After all, if someone's boss is feeling her up, she doesn't have to tolerate it; she could find another job.
No, it wouldn't, because there is actual malice directed at that person which requires some kind of legal redress. In other words, I deny that talking about sex is sexual harassment.
quote:
"Why can she not just ignore what they are saying and do her job?"
Her argument is that her job was to write down work-related material. Their comments were unnecessary, by this logic.
You are ignoring my question.
quote: You may as well ask whether a woman in an office of all men should ignore the nude and semi-nude screensavers those men choose to put on their computers, because those screensavers don't do anything more than hurt her feelings and make her feel uncomfortable.
Sure.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, the thing with the article is -- why did she not sue until AFTER she had lost her job? If it was really so offensive while she worked there, why didn't she speak up earlier? This just sounds like retaliation to me...
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In other words, I deny that talking about sex is sexual harassment."
The problem here is that one of the goals of actual sexual harassment is to make the working environment so uncomfortable for people of the opposite sex (usually women) that they choose not to work there.
Frankly, I fail to see why maintaining minimum standards of professional and ethical behavior in a workplace would or should be a problem for people.
------
"why did she not sue until AFTER she had lost her job?"
The simple fact is that many, many people put up with behavior that they find offensive precisely because they fear that they wouldn't have a case, or they wouldn't win the case, or are too shy and/or non-confrontational to bring it up -- but once you've lost a job, a lot of the reasons not to make waves while you were there are conveniently removed. It's not particularly noble, but I think it's perfectly understandable.
[ December 22, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What the story doesn't say - or else I missed it - was what, if anything, the woman did to address the issue before being fired. Did she ever refuse to transcribe material she felt was inappropriate? Did she approach the writers and tell them her concerns? Ever ask them to knock it off?
If this happened in, say, an accounting firm, I think she'd have a clear case. But whether it can be proven to be "required" for creativity or not, it reads as though the atmosphere existed before she arrived. I keep thinking of someone working for the Southpark guys, or anyone hired to transcribe for Kevin Smith.
It'll be an interesting case to watch. I would probably come down on the writers' side, although I wouldn't have charged her their fees. And I'm really interested in how the female stars of Friends react to what their writers were saying...
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Well, the thing with the article is -- why did she not sue until AFTER she had lost her job? If it was really so offensive while she worked there, why didn't she speak up earlier? This just sounds like retaliation to me...
I could be retaliation. It also could be that she has three kids, looked around for another job but couldn't find one to make the mortage, and put up with it as long as she could, until they got fed up enough with her refusal to play along that they fired her. Who knows, at this point?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem, Dag, is that this can too easily be extended to almost all forms of creative endeavor -- as well as less creative ones. What if a top-notch lawyer makes the argument that he has to leave pubic hairs on his assistant's soda cans because that kind of puerile humor is necessary to get his legal juices flowing? After all, how can we possibly argue that this ISN'T true?
These same line-drawing arguments exist everywhere in law. And they exist in sexual harrassment law even if you decide this case clearly falls on the harrassment line. It's one of the reasons sexual harrassment law is problematic.
Take it a step further. Sex in the City doesn't have to follow decency regulations. Would these jokes be allowed then?
quote:A construction worker could very easily claim that patting the butt of the attractive on-site claims worker is the only thing that keeps him going in the morning. What if that's really the case?
Not the same - this is private motivation, not an activity that is directly related to the job at hand and the product being produced.
quote:If we're going to make arguments about "necessity," what about "creative endeavor" makes it such a unique field that we become unqualified to determine what behaviors -- even if not intrinsic to the final output -- are still necessary?
The fact that it requires a higher percentage of "failure" (that is, the creation of product that is unsuitable for actual release) than most jobs do, and the fact that they're trying to walk right up to a line in the final product. Going over that line as part of the creation process is necessary.
quote:I think it's fairly clear that we need to draw the line rather narrowly on this one.
Fine, but I think it's fairly clear we need to provide as much lattitude as possible in creative endeavors.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, I fail to see why maintaining minimum standards of professional and ethical behavior in a workplace would or should be a problem for people.
Tom, there are many things that people should do that we don't think it's right to use the law to force them to do.
Things that implicate free speech rights trigger many people's suspicions.
Considering California's outright hostility to some employers' attempts at maintaining their principles in other areas, this seems particularly specious to me.
Dagonee
[ December 22, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm not sure that the writer's claim of "creative necessity" is entirely without merit, even considering the worst of the reported comments.
I imagine that VERY MUCH of the humor in television is born of brainstorming sessions that would shock most of us. I think it's likely that an episode that deals with a sexual situation of any kind was born of a conversation very unfit for television that was then heavily edited down to TV standards. Much of the humor is probably also born of the editing down itself, as innuendo is nearly always funnier than naked crudeness. And where do you draw the line? Sure most of us would be shocked by the worst of the comments. But what percentage of the brainstorming did they constitute? Should it be a sueable offense the first time something gets out of hand? The second? And where do you draw the line? And how do you draw the line without creating an atmosphere where *everything* remotely sexual is second-guessed before being discussed to the point of stifling all creativity?
What really bugs me about the article itself, though, is the tacit assumption that writer's groups with a larger number (or perhaps majority) of women are less offensive. To whom? What actually gets written into Sex and the City is immensely offensive to a lot of people. Do you actually imagine that the writers' sessions are tamer than the show itself? And if the entire group is women, does that make it OK for them to be crude? Would the typist in question have been less offended if it were a woman spouting vulgarities? Should the sex of the writer matter?
EDIT:
quote: The fact that it requires a higher percentage of "failure" (that is, the creation of product that is unsuitable for actual release) than most jobs do, and the fact that they're trying to walk right up to a line in the final product. Going over that line as part of the creation process is necessary.
Clearly I don't type fast enough. Dag said the kernel of my point much more succinctly that I, and faster too.
[ December 22, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Not the same - this is private motivation, not an activity that is directly related to the job at hand and the product being produced."
I'm not sure how you can make that argument. How do you know that, for example, the construction worker would be able to nail that board down properly without patting someone's butt? Merely arguing that other construction workers can achieve the same task without requiring the same behavior won't do it -- since, after all, other people have written television programs without joking about having anal sex with Courtney Cox, so presumably that's not a necessary behavior, either.
If you can't show that that specific construction worker didn't need to pat that specific butt to nail that specific board, then it seems ridiculous to grant "creative endeavor" a pass for the same argument.
[ December 22, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you can make that argument. How do you know that, for example, the construction worker would be able to nail that board down properly without patting someone's butt?
Then lets get rid of all sexual harassment law, because ALL of it requires assumptions such as the one you are protesting, just in different areas.
For that matter, the ADA would be toast, because "reasonable accomodation" requires the application of even more assumptions such as these.
quote:If you can't show that that specific construction worker didn't need to pat that specific butt to nail that specific board, then it seems ridiculous to grant "creative endeavor" a pass for the same argument.
This would be true if the law worked the way you apparantly think it does. Judges make this exact kind of determination ALL the time, and many become rules with legal force in their jurisdiction.
Dagonee
[ December 22, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
To use your analogy, Tom, this isn't a case about a construction worker patting an unwilling coworker's butt, this is a case about a construction worker patting his buddy's butt and someone watching them taking offense.
Are these not two totally different scenarios?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Judges make this exact kind of determination ALL the time, and many become rules with legal force in their jurisdiction."
Oh, I know. I'm merely pointing out that this kind of determination is completely arbitrary. Are we really saying that it's okay to exempt a whole field from sexual harassment suits simply because we're less comfortable telling artists what they need to do their jobs than we are in telling construction workers?
-----
Storm, more precisely, it's a case of a construction worker telling another construction worker, as an attractive woman walks past, "Gee, I'd like to pat her butt" -- and then turning to another woman and saying, "Oh, while you're laying that mortar, do me a favor and etch that into the brick, would you? Sex jokes make the mortar stronger."
[ December 22, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's how baseball got their anti-trust exemption.
And several people, myself included, have given reasons why the fields are different and why the blanket assertion "we have to do this to be productive" is not the only reason for granting such an exemption. Yet you are insisting on relying on an extreme, obviously ridiculous counter example.
The standard you seem to be advocating is not present ANYWHERE in the law. If you want to have a general discussion about the pros and cons of such judicial legislating, fine. But within the context of the legal system under which such things are decided, this is pretty standard rule-making.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And several people, myself included, have given reasons why the fields are different and why the blanket assertion 'we have to do this to be productive' is not the only reason for granting such an exemption."
Oh, I'm all for granting such exemptions when work of this type genuinely requires dirty, vulgar jokes. I would not expect, for example, a cameraman in a porn shoot to complain about having to watch people having sex; I would not expect Andrew Dice Clay's personal assistant to complain about having to hear his act.
On the other hand, at some point I think we are justified in asking whether simulating masturbation and making sex jokes about one's coworkers are indeed essential elements in producing a mediocre sitcom. And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."
That the writers themselves cannot exhibit any kind of restraint does not mean that sitcom writers of equivalent caliber cannot be expected to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."
But based on what?
All you've done is assert this time and time again. Both KarlEd and myself have given reasons distinguishing this; you're only response to those reasons has been to extend them to ludicrous examples.
Talking about sex is necessary to do this job. Talking about sex in excess of what can get on TV is necessary to do this job. That's the difference between the construction work and writing a sexually edgy sitcom: the latter involves a quantity distinction, the former can suffice with an outright ban.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Talking about sex in excess of what can get on TV is necessary to do this job."
See, I'm going to make the argument that there's a distinction between talking about sex in excess of what can get on TV and talking specifically about, say, ejaculating all over a coworker's large breasts while expecting my secretary to write that down.
At best, we can merely speculate about how necessary that kind of talk is -- and, again, on what basis can we make that determination? Why would a TV writer be more entitled to make that argument than a construction worker? In neither case do we really know what they need to do their job.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, I'm going to make the argument that there's a distinction between talking about sex in excess of what can get on TV and talking specifically about, say, ejaculating all over a coworker's large breasts while expecting my secretary to write that down.
At best, we can merely speculate about how necessary that kind of talk is -- and, again, on what basis can we make that determination? Why would a TV writer be more entitled to make that argument than a construction worker? In neither case do we really know what they need to do their job.
Because the coworker happens to be the actress playing the part for which you are writing, there's a little more connection than a pat on the butt to laying down mortar.
The construction worker parallel is nonesensical, Tom. It fails the laugh test.
Dagonee
[ December 22, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Explain to me why, exactly, it's nonsensical. What part of the analogy invalidates it, precisely?
That it's a deliberately amusing example is self-evident; that's why I picked it. However, I fail to see the clear, logical reason that it's non-sensical. What specific element of the analogy breaks down when we're deciding whether a construction worker is more or less qualified than a TV writer to tell us he needs to engage in excessive vulgarity to do his job?
-------
As a side note, I would buy the whole "actress for whom the part was being written" bit if, even once, I could recall a joke about pearl necklaces being made on "Friends."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Explain to me why, exactly, it's nonsensical. What part of the analogy invalidates it, precisely?
I've done so, several times. In the seemingly vain hope you might at least address it, I'll do so again:
Talking about sex is necessary to write a show about sex. Touching someone on the butt when there's no physical boosting or lifting motive is not necessary to lay brick.
Therefore, the construction example can be dismissed immediately without attempting to draw any lines. That's why it's different.
quote:That it's a deliberately amusing example is self-evident; that's why I picked it. However, I fail to see the clear, logical reason that it's non-sensical. What specific element of the analogy breaks down when we're deciding whether a construction worker is more or less qualified than a TV writer to tell us he needs to engage in excessive vulgarity to do his job?
Because one has no necessity for the particular behavior being called harrassing, and one has admittedly some necessity for the behavior being called harrassing.
quote:As a side note, I would buy the whole "actress for whom the part was being written" bit if, even once, I could recall a joke about pearl necklaces being made on "Friends."
Again, there is necessity to go beyond what can be broadcast in brainstorming sessions.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Talking about sex is necessary to write a show about sex."
Again, I would disagree that Friends is "about sex" in the manner described; moreover, I would disagree that the writers ever believed that their jokes about anal sex and masturbation would ever make it into the show. At best, we can claim that these "beyond-the-pale" attempts at vulgar humor led them down paths that eventually produced the jokes they intended to air.
But once you do that -- once you say that "okay, this behavior did not directly produce this intended result, but put us in a frame of mind necessary to produce the intended result" -- it leads us back to the construction worker analogy. After all, why can't the construction worker argue that he needs to pat someone's butt to get into the mood to lay brick?
That is, again, the argument these writers are making: that while none of these jokes were aired, or intended to air, they were necessary in order to get into the mood to write.
"Again, there is necessity to go beyond what can be broadcast in brainstorming sessions."
Absolutely. But I would argue that, even in their brainstorming sessions, they never in a million years intended for jokes of that nature to leave the room. At best, the jokes created an environment that they felt best supported their creative process -- but, again, if the argument is that the production of an environment that may or may not have been offensive to women was necessary, we essentially invalidate all sexual harassment legislation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:After all, why can't the construction worker argue that he needs to pat someone's butt to get into the mood to lay brick?
He can argue it. And the minute he does, I'd be dancing up and down as opposing counsel (in private of course). Because as soon as he makes that argument, I know I've won, because it's a ridiculous argument.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet it is more ridiculous than "we need to fantasize about ejaculating over Courtney Cox's breasts while she barks like a dog in order to write a joke in which she overcookes pasta because she's been distracted by a monkey?"
[ December 22, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Absolutely. But I would argue that, even in their brainstorming sessions, they never in a million years intended for jokes of that nature to leave the room. At best, the jokes created an environment that they felt best supported their creative process -- but, again, if the argument is that the production of an environment that may or may not have been offensive to women was necessary, we essentially invalidate all sexual harassment legislation.
No, that's hardly "at best." At best, the jokes in their crude form were modified to be acceptable to network standards.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"At best, the jokes in their crude form were modified to be acceptable to network standards."
See, I'm not hearing that. I've seen a few episodes of "Friends," and a number of my coworkers here were obsessed enough with the show that I've got a decent amount of familiarity with it.
Unless they toned down the anal sex joke into a joke about wearing a duck on one's head, I don't see much evidence of that particular creative evolution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yet it is less ridiculous than "we need to fantasize about ejaculating over Courtney Cox's breasts while she barks like a dog in order to write a joke in which she overcookes pasta because she's been distracted by a monkey?"
Easily, because I wouldn't present it in those words. No matter how the construction situation is presented, it doesn't pass the "don't sell what you wouldn't buy" maxim.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So while I'm arguing both fairness, logical consistency, and the need for coherent precedent, you're arguing "what I can make sound good." You're not saying that there's any logical reason that the construction worker analogy is flawed; it just sounds sillier, because we find the process of writing more mysterious than the process of bricklaying.
[ December 22, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"At best, the jokes in their crude form were modified to be acceptable to network standards."
See, I'm not hearing that. I've seen a few episodes of "Friends," and a number of my coworkers here were obsessed enough with the show that I've got a decent amount of familiarity with it.
Unless they toned down the anal sex joke into a joke about wearing a duck on one's head, I don't see much evidence of that particular creative evolution.
There were masturbation jokes, oral sex jokes, and at least one veiled reference to anal sex. There were jokes about naming body parts, fantasy, and sexual roleplay. There was a detailed desrciption of the best way for Monica to achieve orgasm, with Rachel cheering her on with mentions of being "upside down." Of course, the details were replaced with numbers, but, had they not been, it would have easily entered the territory of what you describe as self-evidently unnecessary. And it is very likely that scene started with a graphic description that was then toned down.
quote:A woman may be the victim of sexual harassment if she is forced to work in an atmosphere of hostility or degradation of her gender. If an employer or supervisor engages in conduct which “sufficiently offends, humiliates, distresses or intrudes upon its victim, so as to disrupt her emotional tranquility in the workplace, affect her ability to perform her job as usual, or otherwise interferes with and undermines her personal sense of well-being” the employer or supervisor engages in harassment based on sex.(footnote removed)
quote:We find no merit in defendants’ argument Chase, Malins and Reich did not discriminate against Lyle based on her sex but rather treated her “just like one of the guys.” Because the FEHA, like Title VII, is not a fault based tort scheme, unlawful sexual harassment can occur even when the harassers do not realize the offensive nature of their conduct or intend to harass the victim.(footnote removed)
quote:Defendants contend Lyle cannot produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find “the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Again we disagree.
“Whether the sexual conduct complained of is sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile or offensive work environment must be determined from the totality of the circumstances. [Citation.] The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable employee’s work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee and that she was actually offended.
“The factors that can be considered in evaluating the totality of the circumstances are: (1) the nature of the unwelcome sexual acts or works . . . ; (2) the frequency of the offensive encounters; (3) the total number of days over which all of the offensive conduct occurs; and (4) the context in which the sexually harassing conduct occurred. [citation] (several footnotes removed)
quote:We conclude there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the writers’ room on “Friends” was a hostile or offensive work environment for a woman.
The evidence in the record shows Chase, Malins and Reich constantly engaged in discussions about anal and oral sex using the words “****,” “blowjob,” and “schlong,” discussed their sexual exploits both real and fantasized, commented on the sexual nature of the female actors on the show, made and displayed crude drawings of women’s breasts and vaginas, pretended to masturbate and altered the words on the scripts and other documents to create new words such as “tits” and “penis.” This conduct occurred nearly every working day of the four months Lyle spent on the show. (footnote removed)
quote:A jury could find the sexual conduct in this case particularly severe because Lyle was a captive audience. She had to be in the writers’ room where most of the offensive conduct took place because her job required her to take notes on the writers’ ideas for jokes, dialogue and story lines which Chase, Malins and Reich intermixed with their personal sex-related jokes, comments, remarks and gestures.
On the defence "creative necessity":
quote:Defendants’ argument appears to be unique in the annals of sexual harassment litigation. Nevertheless we find defendants’ theory of “creative necessity” has merit under the distinctive circumstances of this case and defendants are entitled to pursue their theory at trial. Defendants are not entitled to summary adjudication, however, because “context” is only one factor to be considered in determining the existence of a hostile working environment and because there are triable issues of fact as to whether defendants’ conduct was indeed necessary to the performance of their jobs. (footnote removed)
quote:Here, defendants argue the sexually explicit conversations among the writers were not gratuitous but had a compelling business purpose: to generate ideas for jokes, dialogue and story ideas for the show which routinely contains sexual innuendos and adult humor and situations. According to the defendants no alternative to these sexual brainstorming sessions exists. As a writers’ assistant tasked with taking notes on these jokes, dialogue and story lines Lyle had to be present during the entire session, even when the writers were discussing their personal sexual exploits or fantasies, because, as Malins explained, “you just never knew when something was going to pop up.”
Obviously the “creative necessity” defense has its limits. For example, writers’ assistants cannot be kissed, fondled or caressed in the interests of developing a “love scene” between the characters. Nor would “creative necessity” justify lewd, offensive or demeaning remarks directed at the writers’ assistants personally. Within such limits, however, defendants may be able to convince a jury the artistic process for producing episodes of “Friends” necessitates conduct which might be unacceptable in other contexts.
quote:Thus, to the extent defendants can establish the recounting of sexual exploits, real and imagined, the making of lewd gestures and the displaying of crude pictures denigrating women was within “the scope of necessary job performance” and not engaged in for purely personal gratification or out of meanness or bigotry or other personal motives, defendants may be able to show their conduct should not be viewed as harassment.
This is the appelate court sending the case back to the district court for a jury trial. I have not found out when this new trial is taking place (or whether it already has been conducted). I only scanned the judgement quickly, but it appears as if the justices considered the plaintiff to have a prima facie case for sexual harassment even as they see some merit in the "creative necessity" defence, and wanted to leave it for a jury to decide upon the specific circumstances of the case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah. So while I'm arguing both fairness, logical consistency, and the need for coherent precedent, you're arguing "what I can make sound good." [Smile] You're not saying that there's any logical reason that the construction worker analogy is flawed; it just sounds sillier, because we find the process of writing more mysterious than the process of bricklaying.
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. I've presented the reasons they're different time and time and time again now.
And time again.
Your articulation of the Friend's issue ignored several relevant points and ignored the fact that by the time that comes up, it will have already been decided that explicit sexual discussion is allowed. The threshold argument is far different in the construction situation.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thanks, Tristan.
"And it is very likely that scene started with a graphic description that was then toned down."
You know, in that specific case, I disagree -- precisely because the humor in that situation comes from the complex code, and not the acts being coded themselves. In other words, the acts themselves are not inherently humorous; they wouldn't've made any sense as jokes.
My own gut feeling is that that particular joke sprung nearly fully formed from someone's head, simply because it wouldn't've been a joke until the concept of coding it came up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But your own gut feeling is pretty much irrelevant here.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, though, unless we intend to argue that we should trust an individual worker's claim that a specific behavior was necessary -- an argument which makes the construction worker's claim no less valid than the writer's claim -- it becomes necessary for them to SHOW the origin of that joke. That YOU believe they came up with that joke by fantasizing about all the possible ways to bring Courtney Cox to orgasm is certainly no more compelling than my belief that they didn't.
[ December 22, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that we should trust an individual worker's claim
It's not just about trusting the individual worker's claim, there's also a credibility judgment. And the construction worker's claim is far, far less credible.
quote:That YOU believe they came up with that joke by fantasizing about all the possible ways to bring Courtney Cox to orgasm is certainly no more compelling than my belief that they didn't
But the fact that I, the consumate reasonable person , believe it makes the credibility assessment far more likely to go in the writer's favor.
Dagonee
[ December 22, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Based on whose assessment? Have we asked other construction workers, or been construction workers ourselves?
We make a judgement here for "credibility" based solely upon the fact that we don't completely understand the writing process, but are willing to believe that we do completely understand how to lay brick.
[ December 22, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Based on whose assessment? Have we asked other construction workers, or been construction workers ourselves?
We make a judgement here for "credibility" based solely upon the fact that we don't completely understand the writing process.
Tom, that credibility assessment is going to be made by a jury. The excerpted ruling basically states that the necessity defense is one which a reasonable juror could find for.
The credibility in either situation will be judged by people without firsthand knowledge of the industry. You can be sure one side or the other will take care of that in jury selection.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why I'm a little fascinated by the prospect of the trial. Are they going to have to trot out experts -- TV writers -- on either side to "prove" that it is or is not necessary to fantasize aloud about sodomy with the female leads to produce a sitcom?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think that forcing the writers to restrict their conversations/behavior would contribute to a chilling effect on their work. In this instance, whatever the writers need to get into the writing headspace is fair game.
As suggested, this does not include anything directed at the transcriber herself. But thoughts, jokes, pathetic speculation, whatever works.
I think she should have spoken to them about it while she was there (if she didn't), asked to be swapped with another transcriber (if that was an option) or worked on finding a different position. Putting up with it until she was fired for something else and then suing sounds more like a vengeance suit.
I don't think that such behavior is necessary for writing comedy per se, but apparently it was for these writers. Shouldn't they be the ones determining the requirements of their job, as long as they produce? If one of the things they need is a transcriber that can't be offended, I don't see that as unreasonable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's also why the burden of proof issue will likely be very important. It may be decisive.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, if she was fired for cause, her damages will likely be very limited, even if she wins.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Shouldn't they be the ones determining the requirements of their job, as long as they produce?"
While I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, Chris, why would you extend this offer to writers but not permit it among construction workers? Why are they less entitled to decide what kind of work environment they need to lay brick?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Well, if I read the case correctly, it appears to be up to the plaintiff to establish that the comments, gestures, etc. were sufficiently severe to create a "hostile work environment" whereas, if she manage to do that, the defendants will have to convince the jury that their conduct were justified by "creative necessity".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tristan, it doesn't make it clear to me if the defense only bears the burden of production or persuasion.
quote:While I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, Chris, why would you extend this offer to writers but not permit it among construction workers? Why are they less entitled to decide what kind of work environment they need to lay brick?
Because of the necessity of some talk about sex. Just like we would probably let a bricklayer get away with a method of applying mortar that might seem provocative.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because the bricklayer's job doesn't require creativity? Because they don't have to be in a particular mindset/mood/whatever to write Emmy-winning shows?
My main problem is, what laws would you write to restrict their behavior that wouldn't restrict creativity? It seems to me that the sole definer of what is offensive or not in that position is the transcriber. To me, that means "hire someone who won't get offended."
I'd really like to know what steps she took while she was still in the position.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
She was fired for not writing down everything that they said. Would it change any of your opinions if it came out in the trial that the reason for this was not really that she was “too slow” but that she refused to transcribe certain comments? And that that is why she was fired?
Pure speculation on my part, but it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch from what we do know.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Hmm, "production or persuasion" appears to be an American distinction with which I'm not familiar. The Court said
quote:"Thus, to the extent defendants can establish the recounting of sexual exploits, real and imagined, the making of lewd gestures and the displaying of crude pictures denigrating women was within “the scope of necessary job performance” and not engaged in for purely personal gratification or out of meanness or bigotry or other personal motives, defendants may be able to show their conduct should not be viewed as harassment."
which I interpreted as "persuade", but you are far more qualified than I to judge the legal ramifications of the wording.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Just like we would probably let a bricklayer get away with a method of applying mortar that might seem provocative.
oh, that sounds interesting.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"what laws would you write to restrict their behavior that wouldn't restrict creativity?"
And this, then, is the issue. Should people who work in creative fields be exempt from all behavior-limiting legislation of any kind? Who, then, gets to decide what a creative field is?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:She was fired for not writing down everything that they said. Would it change any of your opinions if it came out in the trial that the reason for this was not really that she was “too slow” but that she refused to transcribe certain comments? And that that is why she was fired?
Dkw, I was wondering about this too, which was one reason why I hunted down the case. However, the plaintiff makes no such claims at all. She admits to not typing fast enough and missing certain things, but claims this was only the pretext for which she was fired, the real reason being her complaining about discriminatory hiring practices of the Friend's cast. I don't think it would hurt her case to admit to deliberately have refused to transcribe certain comments, which leads me to believe that such was not the case.
[ December 22, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Should people who work in creative fields be exempt from all behavior-limiting legislation of any kind?
Nope. As has already been said, there are whole ranges of things they could not do. There were no restrictions on what they could say, or what they could do that wasn't directed at the transcriber.
Behavior limitation in such cases comes from the management. Does such behavior hinder the work? Does it create hostile environments and prevent competent people from seeking employment?
What would concern me would not be if her immediate work environment was harassing. What would concern me would be if the entire structure reinforced it. Could she go to the show's producers and complain? Would the producers have asked the writers to tone it down if she had? Could she be moved to the offices of different writers? If she had options and did not pursue them, I don't think the harassment charge is justified.
If she did not have such options, or if she tried them and was turned down or ignored, then she should sue 'em. If she did have such options but did not pursue them, then tough.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:"Stupid crap like this is taken seriously..."
Just to clarify, you're saying that filing a sexual harassment suit because someone else was kissed by her boyfriend is stupid, right? Because the court would agree with you.
I would disagree, however, that filing a sexual harassment suit because you were forced to transcribe deliberately rude, vulgar, and exaggerated sexual fantasies about coworkers is equally stupid.
Sorry, Tom...I wasn't sufficiently clear. Yes, the "stupid crap" I was referring to was what happened where I worked, not what was in the article. That's what I get for writing in a hurry. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I find it very disturbing that no one here questions the necessity of men treating women like sex objects to write jokes about sex. "Hey wouldn't it be funny if this happened," is very different from objectifying the female cast members.
I've mentioned in another thread to putting up with comments that were blatantly in violation of the bank's communication policies. The way this market works, I'd get fired for complaining since no one would back me up. Everyone runs around saying it's not that bad.
Since it looks like I'll be getting the other job, I've started thinking about how to point out the problems without seeming negative or whiney during the exit interview.
As a woman, I can tell you it's not easy to speak up and say something bothers you when everyone else is busy laughing and acting like it's no big deal. No one wants to be the only person in the office who can't take a joke. What's really bad is the bank addresses those exact issues in our Civil Treatment class, and the management here does it anyway.
Tristan's quotes say she was only there four months. I'm only changing jobs now after two years of this crap. It takes a while before the abuse outweighs the need for a paycheck.
I think it was very clear that the writers had no respect for women as human beings. If that's not sexual harrassment and creating a hostile work environment, I don't know what is.
As for her deserving money, it's not that she deserves it. It's that the writers need to be taught that what they did was wrong. Hit em where it hurts. I think of the money as a fine that goes to the victim instead of the government.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I find it very disturbing that no one here questions the necessity of men treating women like sex objects to write jokes about sex."
*raises his hand* That's kind of what I've been doing all thread. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I find it very disturbing that no one here questions the necessity of men treating women like sex objects to write jokes about sex. "Hey wouldn't it be funny if this happened," is very different from objectifying the female cast members.
That's it, exactly.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Sorry, Tom. I thought you were debating the legalities of it. I'm glad I wasn't the only one bugged by it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dunno about Tom, but I was debating the legalities. What I think of the actions of the writers is another matter. I just don't think there's a valid harassment case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was debating the legalities as well.
Dagonee
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
The writers' degradation and objectification of women is juvenile and wrong. They are not people I would associate myself with. However, I don't think we should use the legal system as a way to "hit them where it hurts" and "teach them what they did was wrong" as AvidReader suggests we should do. Being an ass doesn't automatically mean your behavior qualifies as sexual harassment.
Also, to respond to something Tom said a while back:
quote: we are justified in asking whether simulating masturbation and making sex jokes about one's coworkers are indeed essential elements in producing a mediocre sitcom
Whether or not the sitcom is, in your assessment, "mediocre" bears no relation to the fact that it WAS successful. The writers' job describtion was NOT "write a show which TomDavidson things is good," but "write a show which makes money." By that description, they were good at their jobs.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm curious then, Brian. What should the woman have done instead? If the legal system won't stand up for the employee's right to not have to endure sexual objectification of women, who will? The company that makes money off the writers? What if the company won't enforce their own rules? Where else can she go?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
People cut writers too much slack. These guys need to elaborate on their sexual fantasies involving cast members in order to write mildly sexual jokes? Yeah, sure. Perhaps they would write even better mildly sexual jokes if their brainstorming sessions involved flavoured lubricant and orgies.
Essentially, I don't get the 'they needed to do X in order to write successful jokes'. So? Does the law owe them success? If I need to eat the still-beating hearts of virgins to write a successful horror movie script, should I be allowed to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Dunno about Tom, but I was debating the legalities. What I think of the actions of the writers is another matter."
I don't think you can make this distinction. If your legal defense of their actions is that their vulgar behavior was indeed necessary for them to perform their job, you are tacitly approving of their actions or, alternatively, tacitly disapproving of their jobs. As you haven't spent any time condemning all sitcom writers, I can only assume the former: that you are willing to condone abusive, vulgar behavior if in the opinion of the writers it is necessary to produce a successful television show.
[ December 23, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't need to condone or approve of any of it. It's not my show. I don't set the rules for behavior for writers working on a TV show, and, more to the point, neither should the government.
Did the writers produce quality work? Were their bosses happy with the work?
If they did not, or if the transcriber had ever once complained about their actions, then the people in charge should have investigated to see if the writers needed to change their ways or be replaced. If the producers of the show feel that this kind of freedom is necessary to get scripts, it's their perogative. The atmosphere should have been mentioned in the job description, though, I'd have given the transcriber a heads-up and the option to move to another position.
Again and again and again - did she approach anyone with her concerns before she was fired? Did she have that option? Did she seek it out?
I'm not going to defend the actions of the writers. I am going to defend the producers' right to allow them.
[ December 23, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
As I understand the case, the company didn't have any rules to enforce. The woman didn't let anyone in her company know about the despicable behavior of her co-workers until AFTER her employment was terminated. If there IS no complaint, what can the company do to find a solution to the complaint?
While I agree that the writers are misogynistic, chauvinist pics, it appears that being morons is their only crime. It makes me VERY uncomfortable that the legal system is being used to punish them for being morons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't set the rules for behavior for writers working on a TV show, and, more to the point, neither should the government."
But the government does set rules for behavior in a workplace, specifically regarding things like sexual harassment, racial intimidation, etc. Do you believe that it should not?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Does it? It sets rules for hiring practices, and it requires that employees have avenues to redress such concerns. That's not at all the same thing. Does the government actually say you cannot make crude jokes in your workplace if none of the employees care?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Does the government actually say you cannot make crude jokes in your workplace if none of the employees care?"
Actually, yeah, it does. Or, rather, it says you cannot make crude jokes in your workplace even if an employee present at the time of the joke does not make his or her displeasure known to you personally.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wow. How do they write Southpark episodes, then?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't know -- I almost agree with Chris that the government just gives the avenues for greivance, without actually giving out specifics of what sexual harrassment is -- because I've seen a lot of differences in company policies from place to place in their definition of harrassment.
For instance, where I now work, or policy simply says:
quote:NON-HARASSMENT The bank will not tolerate the harassment of one employee by another. The following employment practices are a part of our non-harassment policy:
1. It is our policy to maintain an environment free of intimidation, insult, and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability. Any employee who violates this policy will be subject to discipline, including discharge.
2. We will not tolerate any employee or supervisor engaging in sexual harassment as outlined in the following policy:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Any person employed by the bank who engages in such unlawful conduct will be subject to discipline, including discharge.
3. It is the policy of [name] Bank that no employee shall be discriminated against because of his/her AIDS condition. [name] Bank will review each AIDS-related situation on an individual basis and be guided by its commitment to the protection of the individual's right to privacy and confidentiality, and by due regard for public health interests.
4. We will not tolerate any real or perceived threat to the personal safety of its employees or customers. Any employee bringing a weapon onto the workplace premises will be immediately terminated. Any employee who threatens or assaults another employee, manager, or customer will be subject to termination.
If an employee believes the actions or comments of another employee constitute unwelcome harassment; or if an employee feels threatened, is assaulted, or witnesses another employee, manager, or customer being threatened or assaulted, the employee should report the situation to any level manager, supervisor, Human Resource Officer, or any officer of the Bank. Threatening or suicidal phone calls should be immediately transferred to the Security Office or the Human Resources Officer.
In its efforts to prevent discrimination or harassment of any kind, the Bank will maintain a total open-door policy. All complaints will be promptly investigated as confidentially as a thorough investigation will allow. The complaining employee will then be advised of the result of the investigation.
While that may seem kinda broad -- I don't read it that way -- basically if the guys are all standing around here making off-color jokes or comments, but those aren't directed at ME, and it really isn't my business to be listening in, even if it is near me, I don't see how that would be sexual harrassment toward me.
Farmgirl
p.s.-- where I used to work, we had one guy that just used the word "bitch" just once - not even directed at anyone at work, and he was fired for sexual harrassment. So they had a very tight policy.
[ December 23, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps they take all their own notes...?
Honestly, I don't know. I'm not aware of a similar case ever coming to trial.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My problem with this is the idea of someone deciding what constitutes acceptable behavior. I think this should be handled at a local level, a changing dynamic that flexes with the work force. Obviously personal harassment is out, but hostile environments would be defined by the offended. If there are no offended, there is no hostile environment.
As long as there are enforced avenues of recourse and attention is fully paid to all complaints, I don't think the government should be establishing an offical level of workplace conversation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Finally got around to reading the article linked in the first post.
The way I've understood it, and I checked this with my Mom who with her 30+ years of HR and her being hired by the employment law firm to teach seminars on such things is probably the most qualified expert without a law degree you can find.
In her opinion, and that of the lawyers she works with, overhearing off-color jokes that make you uncomfortable does not constitute sexual harassment.
If a person complained about the jokes, and the jokes continued, with the tellers making sure she heard them or directed them to her, then it would be considered as someone intentionally creating a hostile environment.
If the people telling the jokes said, "Gee, I'm sorry, didn't know this bothered you - won't happen again." There is no harassment in that scenario.
What I did not find in the linked article, was where the typist complained that she was bothered by some of the things being said and done before she was fired. (and we have no way of knowing whether or not the firing was justified on the ground they stated - was she in fact not a fast enough typist?)
Also, if listening to such talk is part of her job, and she knew that going in, I find it hard to agree she was being harassed.
Here's a possible scenario, obviously we don't know if that happened here:
Woman goes to her boss and says "The talk in these creative meetings really disturbs me, I think they are engaging in behavior beyond the scope of the job and it makes me really uncomfortable." Boss says, okay, I'll talk to them about toning it down.
The writers not only don't tone it down, but ramp it up, and deliberately say things for no other reason than to upset the typist. Okay, that might be harassment.
But if she never said anything until after she was fired - her employers never had a chance to rectify the situation. Considering the scope of the job, she had to know she'd be exposed to some type of sexual banter, and comments of a sexual nature. (not that I dont think some of the stuff in the article was a bit excessive, certainly the writers sound like pigs to me) There is no way for the employer to read her mind and determine what is upsetting to her - she needs to tell them, "Okay, enough is enough - I think this is going too far." If she didn't do that, then I don't think this is a case of sexual harassment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thank you, Belle, that was much more clear than what I was stumbling around.
What she said.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was thinking about dkw's question, if the things she left out weren't because she wasn't fast enough to type them all but deliberately left out because she was uncomfortable with them.
I don't think it changes my position.
She wasn't hired to make a determination on her own what to include in the notes and what not to. She was hired to type down everything she heard. If she didn't do that, either through a deliberate choice, or through incompetence, she still can be fired for cause.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I guess my take on this is a bit different since the bank's policy is that we are each responsible for watching our language and subject matter all the time. Even if no one complains. I have a problem with the idea that X is ok at work as long as no one yells. Either it's appropriate or it's not.
As for the law, the discrimination laws are there to allow minorities and women an equal footing in the business world. How many women would be comfortable working for men who routinely debase their coworkers, even if it is "creative"? Why should only men be allowed to write sitcoms? If you allow men to engage in behavior that alienates female coworkers, that is essentially what you're saying. This is how we work, and if you can't handle it, get out.
Would this conversation be going differnt if they were telling black jokes? As long as no one complains should they be allowed to discuss differing anatomy, deride their intellect, and draw pictures of hangings or blacks in whiteface, provided they're writing black jokes for the show?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Even if no one complains. I have a problem with the idea that X is ok at work as long as no one yells. Either it's appropriate or it's not.
That's an impossible standard. There is no way to know if a person is offended unless they tell you.
All the responsibility can't fall on the employer - they can't uphold a standard that they aren't aware of. Yes, some things are obvious - you as an employer shouldn't have posters of naked women in degrading poses in the copy room - but you cannot expect them to know what bothers someone in a creative meeting for a show about sex unless that person tells them.
Oh, and no - the conversation wouldn't be any different if we were talking about say, the Chappelle Show's creative team. I'm sure their creative sessions are full of racially charged comments. If someone were hired to transcribe them, and didn't do so well enough and was fired and then claimed they were harassed - I'd be reacting the exact same way. I'd want to know if they voiced their complaints before the firing or not, and what the reaction of the employers' was at that time.
[ December 23, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To compare, we'd need to hear transcripts of the writing sessions for women-written sitcoms, espeially those with relationship/sex jokes. I'll bet the staff at Desperate Housewives gets pretty ribald.
Having worked in more than a few woman-dominated offices, I can attest that women can create just as hostile and sexist an environment if they care to. The difference is, of course, that I felt perfectly free to complain if I ever felt offended. I didn't, even though men were decidedly and explicitly insulted in many of the exchanges.
Edited to add: I'm going to sit back and just read Belle's comments. She makes more sense than I do.
[ December 23, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
rotfl, I just had a luncheon with a couple of guys from work that was rather bawdy. But we were all having fun. I'm the one who was having to bite my tounge so as to not embarrass them!
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
AJ, some guys from work were in my office once and we were talking about kids and somehow it got turned around into how they were made and since I was pregnant with the twins at the time there was talk about whether or not anything different or special went into the making of twice the babies. :blush:
I told them they were sexually harassing me and to prove my point I called my mom on speaker phone while they were still there.
I told her what was said and told her to tell them that in her expert opinion, they were harassing me and had to stop. She said no, because for it to be harassment I had to be offended and she knew me too well.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
rotfl, we actually got into discussing polycystic ovaries... they'd never heard of it before... It came up cause I was asked, what my parents would do if I got pregnant. I said that the odds of that happening for me were even *lower* than the norm... and they were like *huh*? So I explained far more than they ever wanted to know...
AJ
[ December 23, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
LOL, AJ that's great advice for any woman who wants to clear a room of guys quick. Start discussing female stuff that really gets them with the ick factor.
I would suggest describing dermoid ovarian cysts (bout halfway down the page, in the paragraph with the heading "Prepare yourself! These are disgusting!"
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
It's different, though, when you are in a position of comfort amongst friends, where the teasing is to make you laugh, as opposed to where it is malicious. Laugh along with the first situation, and things stay comfortable -- after all, they were just poking fun.
But laugh along with the second, and it's just likely to get meaner and more vile. In that case, they don't want you to laugh -- they want you to feel excluded or intimidated.
Unlike a poster from above, I don't think we know enough details to make firm claims about what did or did not happen in this particular case. We can speculate, and we can agree that if she never made known her objections before being fired, that her case is made much weaker. Pretty tenuous. But I'd hesitate to make claims of fact until more details were clarified and corroborated, and that's exactly what a court of law is set up to do.
Mind you, I can give back as good as I get these days, and I have a pretty ribald sense of humor. But there have been times in my life where the context was very different -- where I really needed a particular job, or letter of recommendation, or what have you, and I put up with and played along with direct meanness or degradation in the hopes that it would blow over.
*shrug
Sometimes it did, but a lot of times it didn't. Sometimes taking it on the chin just means they'll punch harder, if it's crying and not laughter that they want to see.
But just because I am in a relative position of power now and pretty much only surrounded by people who wish me well doesn't mean that, in other circumstances, what works for me now would always work to defuse or get through a situation.
[ December 23, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Ok, I'm officially offended. Can you stop with the icky stuff or do I need to see a litigator?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
punwit, you're among friends.
And, of course, we have several lawyers-in-training should I be incorrect. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Now that I know you are offended, punwit, I will not post any more links to icky female ailments.
See how easy that is? Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Again, among friends. Who respect one another and harbor no hidden agendas of resentment, frustration, or toying like a cat with a mouse.
Whew! *wipes forehead
Just, um, stay out of the Wenches Tavern, unless you don't mind being made a Boy Toy. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Yes, I'm among friends. I was just being silly. What would my official duties as a Wench Boy Toy include? Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think there is something to do with strawberry bubble bath. And maybe seed cakes?
But my mind is pure, and I never ever even peeked.
(pssst ... ask Belle or Olivia, or Jenny G)
[ December 23, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You're not saying that there's any logical reason that the construction worker analogy is flawed; it just sounds sillier, because we find the process of writing more mysterious than the process of bricklaying.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, believe it makes the credibility assessment far more likely to go in the writer's favor.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
FG
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)