On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > I worked in television, worked on late night talk shows, stupidly > turned down a job working for Worldwide Pants, and equally stupidly > turned down a job working for Late Night with Conan. So I think I'm on > solid footing when I say what I'm about to say: Any employee, male or > female, who complains about a hostile workplace in television will > very shortly no longer be working in television. > > With the possible exception of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, all > television studios are hostile workplaces, with more cruel and > offensive behavior than you can shake a stick at. There is sex, there > is drugs, there is violence, and there is the constant pressure to > perform, or, if you can't perform, figure out something else you can > do to keep your job. I imagine a woman trying to cut it in the > business feeling even more pressure. I saw a lot of things in my brief > stint in the business, but never once did I see a rat. It just wasn't > an option.
This is interesting Kevin. But it is not directly relevant to the hostile workplace question. Like many legal terms, this one does not mean exactly what it says. A lot of work environments are stressful, pressured and even real mean, but would not meet the technical definition of a hostile work environment. "Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed....Harassment that results in a tangible employment action occurs when a management official’s harassing conduct results in some significant change in an employee’s employment status (e.g., hiring, firing, promotion, failure to promote, demotion, formal discipline, such as suspension, undesirable reassignment, or a significant change in benefits, a compensation decision, or a work assignment). Only individuals with supervisory or managerial responsibility can commit this type of harassment." (this is from the FCC website, but I think it is pretty much how it is defined: fcc http://www.fcc.gov/owd/understanding-harassment.html) My emphasis on the employee needing to make a formal complaint is addressed to the requirement that the behavior be unwelcome. Some behavior is so extreme that the reasonable person test is passed even without prior notification. But if the claim is based on a subjective response of an employee who was not the actual target of harassing behavior, they would need to show that the person engaging in the behavior had some basis for knowing it was unwelcome. This is what makes the breathless revelation about Dave secret bedroom kind of ridiculous. What would be harassment is if he was having sex with staffers in the break room; if he was having secret sex in a secret bedroom, it becomes much less obviously harassing - and now any employee who wants to make the claim would have to show that they had communicated that this practice was unwelcome - or that they themselves were directly harmed by the practice (e.g. because they did not have sex with Dave their job situation was negatively impacted). What we learned from the Friends case (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions) was that television shows are not immune from the rules of sexual harassment - but we also learned that context matters, and what might be offensive or harassing in one type of work place might not be in another. If there is evidence that staffers were negatively impacted in their job status (including not getting promoted or advanced as quickly as they should have) because they refused to have sex with Dave (or because Dave was not interested in having sex with them) then of course there is no need to demonstrate that the behavior was unwelcome; and if this is true, Dave would be guilty of sexual harassment. But again, the sexual harassment laws are not sexual morality laws, and the mere fact that Dave had sex with staffers does not establish that sexual harassment of any kind took place. But, if a female staffer wants to argue that their work environment was made hostile because they were able to surmise that Dave was having a private sexual relationship with some employees, then at a minimum I think they would have to show that they communicated to someone that this behavior was unwelcome (even then I am not convince that alone would sustain a judgment of sexual harassment - you can't win a legal judgment against someone just because you don't approve of the person they are having sex with). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
