CLOSEClose Menu

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Writing television comedy is dirty work. So dirty that crass behavior and vulgar jokes may be an acceptable part of the creative process, rather than a hostile work environment, a state court of appeal ruled. In a unanimous decision Wednesday, 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Earl Johnson Jr. held that it’s up to a jury to determine whether the writers of the hit TV sitcom “Friends” were justified in regularly talking in a sexual nature about female cast members, pretending to masturbate during meetings, and making sexually explicit drawings. The writers, along with the television studios responsible for “Friends,” are being sued by a former writers’ assistant who alleges that she was subjected to sexual and racial harassment while working for the show. Calling the defendants’ “creative necessity” argument “unique in the annals of sexual harassment litigation,” Johnson acknowledged that it nevertheless could be legitimate. “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,” Johnson wrote in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 04 C.D.O.S. 3496. But Adam Levin, a Los Angeles attorney representing the writers and studios, said that the mere fact of allowing a jury to determine whether or not the behavior was appropriate could set a dangerous precedent. “Everybody knows that the show ‘Friends’ deals with adult subject matter,” said Levin. “It’s axiomatic that if the show deals with that subject matter, then the writers have to discuss and joke about sex and body parts and so forth.” If the decision is upheld, he said, writers of all types — even reporters — could be hauled into a jury and forced to defend work-related conversations. Levin said the legal team was considering all its options, including seeking review at the California Supreme Court. Attorneys for the plaintiff did not return calls for comment. The suit provides an intriguing behind-the-curtain look at one of television’s most successful comedies. According to the suit, the show’s writers regularly and openly told “blowjob stories,” and mimicked “black ghetto talk.” One writer apparently had a coloring book depicting female cheerleaders with their legs spread apart, to which he would pencil in breasts and vaginas during meetings. “A constant banter went on between Malins and Chase [two writers] about how Chase could have ‘fucked’ one of the female actors but missed his chance,” Johnson relates in the opinion. The two writers “also frequently made crude, graphic references to the supposed infertility of another female actor.” Johnson notes that the creative necessity argument has its limits. An employee could not be fondled or kissed in the interest of developing a love scene, he explains. And offensive or demeaning remarks personally directed at another writer would also be out of bounds. “Within such limits, however, defendants may be able to convince a jury the artistic process for producing episodes of ‘Friends’ necessitates conduct which might otherwise be unacceptable in other contexts.” Amaani Lyle filed suit in 1999, claiming that she was discriminated against because she is African-American and a woman, and was fired for her insistence that more African-Americans be featured on the show. She also alleged that she was harassed. A trial court dismissed all of Lyle’s claims on summary judgment, and awarded the defendants more than $400,000 in attorneys fees, deeming the case frivolous. On appeal, Johnson affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination and retaliation claims. Lyle was terminated, he wrote, because she couldn’t type fast enough, a primary responsibility of the writers’ assistant job. And the fact that a white writers’ assistant was fired for the same reason around the same time is strong evidence, he found, that Lyle was not subject to disparate treatment. But the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the harassment claim, holding that the behavior that Lyle was subjected to could constitute harassment, and the fact that it occurred in the context of a special workplace did not automatically excuse it. The harassment claims were sent back to trial court. Horowitz also reversed a $415,800 attorneys’ fees award, since under the appeal decision neither party prevailed. Joining Johnson were Justices Dennis Perluss and Fred Woods Jr.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.