Obnoxious Bitch
Friday, February 17, 2006
Justices in the Amaani Lyle vs. Warner Bros. Case Agree with ME!
In May 2004, I wrote about the ridiculous sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Warner Bros. and “Friends” by Amaani Lyle, a writer’s assistant who felt her 4-month stint exposed her to a hostile work environment because of the writers’ crass language and overly sexual comments while brainstorming.
Here’s what I said:
The fact of the matter is that in spite of the strides made by women in the workplace, it’s still a man’s world and boys will be boys… especially in the entertainment industry where eternal Peter Pans keep the machine going by giving the people what they want - the idea that whatever’s in front of them will somehow get them laid. Sex sells, and the entertainment industry sexualizes anything and everything. Any woman who expects to be treated with kid gloves in the business is woefully naive and deserves to be run off if she’s too easily offended AND can’t bring herself to tell the boys when they need to shut the fuck up already. When you’re playing with the boys, you’d best have balls enough to stand up for yourself once in awhile or you’ll get chewed up and spit out in short order. Hooray for Hollywood.
It would appear that the California Supreme Court Justices hearing the case on Tuesday are inclined to agree, according to this article on Law.com yesterday, Crass or Creative? Harassment Case Involving ‘Friends’ Sitcom Reaches Calif. Justices:
Joey Tribbiani would be thrilled.
On Tuesday, the justices of the California Supreme Court seemed inclined to keep their fingers—and jurors’ second-guessing—out of the creative process that helped breathe life into his sex-obsessed character, and others, on the sitcom “Friends.”
The court, in a case televised live by the California Channel, had been asked to rule that writers’ sexually crude comments and simulations while hashing out TV scripts could constitute sexual harassment serious enough to cause a hostile work environment, especially for women and minorities.
But the six justices on hand for oral arguments appeared uncomfortable with the thought of forcing writers to curb their thoughts, words and actions even if they often push the boundaries of sexual harassment.
“This case is unique, is it not, in that it arises in the context of this creative environment,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said.
Justice Ming Chin, recovering from surgery, was absent, but will participate by reviewing tapes of the arguments.
Tuesday’s case was filed by Amaani Lyle, a former writer’s assistant for “Friends,” who claimed that the vulgar language and graphic antics used by the show’s male writers during her four-month employment in 1999 subjected her to a hostile work environment. She argued that constant talk about anal sex, blow jobs, “schlongs” and degrading descriptions of women as “bitches” and “cunts” had nothing to do with the show—which was much tamer on air—and was simply lewd, frat-boy entertainment for the writers.
The writers and Warner Brothers Television Productions, which produced “Friends,” responded by claiming that dirty talk and lewd actions—such as simulating masturbation—were part of the free-rolling, creative process that made “Friends” one of the most popular shows ever on TV.
[Whoa, deja vu!—OB]“It was one of the tools of the trade,” Adam Levin, a partner at Los Angeles’ Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp who represented the writers and Warner Brothers, told the justices Tuesday.
[snip]
On Tuesday, the high court seemed to be in Levin’s corner, with more than one justice noting that Lyle had been warned before she took the job that she would be exposed to foul language of a sexual content.
“If she’s told there’s going to be sexual banter back and forth—and that happens—where’s the alteration to conditions of employment?” Chief Justice Ronald George asked Scott Cummings, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Lyle.
George was referring to provisions of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act that prohibit harassment so pervasive that it alters some condition of an employee’s job.
Levin had earlier argued that Lyle faced no change in employment conditions because exposure to sexually charged speech was part and parcel to her work.
Even so, Justices Werdegar and Carlos Moreno played the devil’s advocate by asking whether writers had absolute immunity from harassment claims or if there were limits on what could be said in writers’ meetings.
Levin said there “are limits, no question about it,” such as not being able to direct racial epithets at minority employees. He also said that writers for the movie “Finding Nemo” or the TV series “Sesame Street” likely wouldn’t engage in such banter.
Amaani should have stayed at Nickelodeon if she’s so goddamned sensitive to crude humor and the sort of sexual banter that goes on between adults, especially in an environment where a “sexy” show is being written.
Stupid fuckin’ cunt, heh.
I’m glad the Justices seem to be aware of the chilling effect ruling in favor of Ms. Lyle would have on the creative process, and that making an exception due to the “intensity” of some of the comments she’d “endured” simply because of her sex would be unfair. According to the statute, harassment must be “because of a person’s gender”, and there’s “no indication that the writers’ comments and actions were based on sex.” So tough titties to you, Amaani!
Get used to the frat-boy humor and sex jokes, babe, or you’ll never make it in this town!
(Found via the Free Speech X-Press Newsletter)
Next entry: Marguerite Perrin vs. Jeanne D'Amico Flisher Previous entry: Dickin' Around with YouTube