![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What constitutes sexual harrassment?
Apr. 26th, 2006 10:58 amHere is an excerpt from today's blog from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
officialgaiman. It includes a link to the ruling about the case mentioned. I felt Judge Chin's Opinion was interesting enough to include under the cut.
I blogged about the following legal case a few years ago, in which a writing assistant was suing Warner Brothers TV and others over FRIENDS, claiming that sexual talk by writers during creative sessions was sexual harrassment in http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004/04/heigh-ho-glamorous-life.asp
but now a decision has come down...
Here is the LA County Bar Association's report of the case, along with a
link to the decision:
Where terms of plaintiff's employment required her to transcribe sexually
oriented jokes and discussions related to the creation of a television
situation comedy featuring sexual themes, and where such jokes and
discussions included sexually coarse and vulgar language that included
discussion of the writers' own sexual experiences but, for the most part,
did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the
workplace, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language
constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the
meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or that the comments were
severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that
was hostile or abusive to plaintiff in violation of the FEHA.
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions - filed April 20, 2006
Cite as 2006 SOS 1999
Full text .pdf file http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0406%2FS125171
It's a pdf file -- towards the end is a remakably sensible concurring judgement from Judge Chin, that people should actually read.
( Judge Chin's Opinion )
officialgaiman. It includes a link to the ruling about the case mentioned. I felt Judge Chin's Opinion was interesting enough to include under the cut.I blogged about the following legal case a few years ago, in which a writing assistant was suing Warner Brothers TV and others over FRIENDS, claiming that sexual talk by writers during creative sessions was sexual harrassment in http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004/04/heigh-ho-glamorous-life.asp
but now a decision has come down...
Here is the LA County Bar Association's report of the case, along with a
link to the decision:
Where terms of plaintiff's employment required her to transcribe sexually
oriented jokes and discussions related to the creation of a television
situation comedy featuring sexual themes, and where such jokes and
discussions included sexually coarse and vulgar language that included
discussion of the writers' own sexual experiences but, for the most part,
did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the
workplace, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language
constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the
meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or that the comments were
severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that
was hostile or abusive to plaintiff in violation of the FEHA.
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions - filed April 20, 2006
Cite as 2006 SOS 1999
Full text .pdf file http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0406%2FS125171
It's a pdf file -- towards the end is a remakably sensible concurring judgement from Judge Chin, that people should actually read.
( Judge Chin's Opinion )
