Alert: California Supreme Court Holds That Workplace Sexual Banter Does Not Necessarily Support A Sex Harassment Claim

April 24, 2006

In the wake of litigation arising from sexual banter by writers of the popular “Friends” television show, the California Supreme Court has published an opinion defining limits on actionable sexual harassment.  In Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 06 C.D.O.S. 3258 (4/20/06), the Court held that some periodic sexual joking in the workplace might not be actionable, particularly if it is not directed at the plaintiff’s sexuality.  The Court upheld summary judgment against plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims notwithstanding undisputed allegations of a sexually charged environment.

Plaintiff had been a comedy writers' assistant working on production of the Friends  television show.  At the time of hire, she was warned that preparing the show scripts often involved jokes about sexual matters, and plaintiff responded that she would be comfortable with such joking.  Indeed, during her employment, plaintiff was required to attend meetings in which writers described their sexual preferences, experiences and fantasies.  Writers occasionally made sexually explicit drawings, pantomimed sexual gestures or sexually denigrated one of the show actresses.  Occasionally, this behavior was repeated in the workplace hallways.  No person made a sexual comment about, or sexually propositioned, plaintiff. 

The California Supreme Court found that this environment did not constitute actionable sexual harassment of plaintiff.  The Court opined that “plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit must show "the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted ' discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex.'”  Here, the Court explained, plaintiff had merely been exposed to sexual banter that was not directed at her and was experienced by the entire work group regardless of gender.   It concluded that “a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim is not established where a supervisor or coworker simply uses crude or inappropriate language in front of employees or draws a vulgar picture, without directing sexual innuendos or gender-related language toward a plaintiff or toward women in general.”

The Court went on to explain that, while an employee may claim sexual harassment based upon behavior directed against others in the workplace, the behavior must be more severe than if it had been directed at the claimant.  Here, the Court observed that plaintiff had been warned about the sexually explicit dialogue and such dialogue was understandable given the subject matter of the scripts.  The Court noted that the record lacked evidence that the sexual discussions were intended to affect (or did affect) plaintiff’s work more detrimentally than it did her male counterparts.  The court did not even find the comments regarding show actresses to create an actionable environment given that the actresses were unaware of them. 

The Lyle decision may provide considerable support for defendants seeking dismissal of sex harassment lawsuits.  The Court explains that summary judgment will not be defeated merely because sexuality was raised in the workforce.  It does not, however, suggest that employers are free to loosen management of sexual content in the workplace.  The Lyle decision appeared to turn upon the fact that none of the sexual comments were expressly directed at plaintiff.  If such comments are directed at plaintiff or her co-workers, summary judgment may remain elusive and the question of what constitutes sexual harassment will be entrusted to a jury.

For more information about this or other employment-related matters, please contact a member of the firm’s Employment Practice Group.