posted
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?
posted
I think that the things they were talking about were disgusting but i don't think they were really sexual harrasment.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
"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.
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)
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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.
posted
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...
posted
"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.
posted
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...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
posted
"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.
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
