In this sexual harassment employment case, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Lyle, a writer’s assistant on the show Friends, could pursue a sexual harassment claim against Warner Bros. and the show’s writers based on sexually explicit language the writers used in the writers room during the course of writing the show. The Court of Appeal had ruled that Lyle could pursue claims for sexual harassment action against the defendants based on such statements even though the statements were not directed at Lyle. It further ruled that defendants could avoid liability only by proving the statements were necessary to the creative process.

The Supreme Court rejected that analysis, holding that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the Friends’ writers sexual banter created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex: “While [California law] prohibits harassing conduct that creates a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex, it does not outlaw sexually coarse and vulgar language or conduct that merely offends.”

The court reasoned that proving harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act requires evidence the harassing comments were directed at plaintiff, and were sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Given the creative environment in which the sexually charged conversations at issue in this case occurred, and that the comments often led to script lines, the court ruled that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude the language constituted harassment “directed at plaintiff because of her sex.” In addition, to the extent certain derogatory comments were made about certain actresses on the show, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude they were severe enough or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Chin reasoned that any liability in this case would have violated the First Amendment rights of the defendants, who were involved in the creative process of creating protected speech.

Horvitz & Levy LLP participated in the case by filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the Center for Individual Rights, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Los Angeles Advertising Agencies Association, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., The National Association of Scholars, Rubin Postaer and Associates, and the Student Press Law Center, Inc. (Read the brief.)

The Lyle decision has received wide attention in media outlets, including CNN, Reuters, NPR, and numerous general circulation newspapers. As one commentator explains, the decision is important because “the California Supreme Court has for decades been on the forefront of promoting. . . expansive interpretations of antidiscrimination laws, creating broad conflict with First Amendment rights and other civil liberties,” and the Lyle decision shows a new willingness “to narrowly interpret hostile environment law.” (D. Bernstein, “Cal. Supreme Court: Offensive Speech Does Not Equal Sexual Harassment” (Apr. 20, 2006) The Volokh Conspiracy.) In addition, for those who worry about the civil liberties implications of overly broad antidiscrimination laws, the opinion distinguishes “between merely offensive sexual banter that some individuals may find distressing, and truly harassing conduct directed at an individual.” (Ibid.)

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map