In Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4868, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Apr. 21, 2004), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether a writers’ assistant for a television show presented sufficient evidence to allow her to take her claims of discrimination and harassment to a jury trial.
Facts
Employee, Amaani Lyle, an African-American woman, was hired as a writers’ assistant for the writers of the situation comedy “Friends.” Her job duties required her to take notes for the writers when they were discussing story lines, jokes, and dialog. Four months after hiring her, the writers fired Employee, and she sued the writers, Warner Brothers Television Productions, and Bright, Kaufman, Crane Productions, claiming gender and racial discrimination and harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment to all Defendants and Employee appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal first addressed Employee’s claim that Defendants fired her because of her race and sex and in retaliation for opposing their racially discriminatory hiring practices with respect to the cast of “Friends.” Defendants presented evidence that Employee’s termination was based on her poor typing performance, because she was incapable of keeping up with the speed of the discussions and left important material out of her notes. Employee presented little to no evidence to dispute Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her employment. Thus, the Court concluded Employee cannot proceed with her claim of discrimination or retaliation.
The Court next turned to Employee’s claim of sexual harassment and concluded that Employee presented sufficient evidence to take her case to the jury. Nearly every working day, the writers graphically discussed anal and oral sex and sexual fantasies, including fantasies about cast members; made and displayed crude drawings of women’s breasts and vaginas; pantomimed masturbation; and altered the words on documents to create new words such as “tits” and “penis.” A jury could conclude that this conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive that it created a hostile work environment.
Defendants argued Employee should not be allowed to proceed against them because the writers acted out of “creative necessity”; in other words, they argued that the frank discussions, colorful jokes and stories, and expressive gestures were part of the creative process that could have (and had) developed into story lines, dialog, gags, and jokes. The Court rejected the idea that “creative necessity” would completely excuse Defendants’ conduct; however, Defendants may present evidence of “creative necessity” at trial to put the conduct in context. In turn, Employee may present evidence that the extent of the conduct was not necessary to produce scripts.
With regard to her claim of racial harassment, Employee presented evidence that the writers constantly made jokes and racial slurs about blacks, such as mimicking “black ghetto talk,” referring to a black person as a “homie,” and applauding others who made those remarks. The Court concluded Employee could present her claim of racial harassment to the jury, because “the pervasive use of jokes and comments which disparage the members of [Employee’s] race as a whole as ignorant, unlettered or foolish is neither ‘isolated, sporadic or trivial.'”
The Court sent the case back to the trial court for a trial on Employee’s claims of sexual and racial harassment.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.