Today, the California Supreme Court rendered a decision in the high-profile case Lyle v. Warner Brothers, in which a female comedy writers' assistant, hired to write down the sexually-charged writers' conferences on the sexually-charged sitcom Friends was fired, and then sued the writers and production company for creating a hostile environment -- due to the sexually-charged writers' conferences. This was after she was advised that the conferences would be sexually-charged, and she replied that she didn't mind. The trial court threw out the sexual harassment causes of action on a summary judgment motion, and awarded the defendants attorney fees on the ground the suit was frivolous. The lower appellate court (0ur Los Angeles appellate court) reversed and held that the plaintiff could take the hostile-environment claim to trial. The California Supreme Court sided with the trial court; and found that general smuttiness that was not directed to the plaintiff did not rise to the level of a hostile environment.
I like the concurring opinion of Justice Ming Chin, in which he addresses what I think is the main issue: Creative freedom. Had the plaintiff been allowed to pursue her suit, then any movie, play rehearsal, or discussion about sexual subjects posed the danger that someone involved might sue the other participants for harassment.
No comments:
Post a Comment