9 Comments

This is reminiscent of the silly suit against “Friends,” where an assistant sued for sexual harrassment because writers on a comedy show about the sex and dating lives of 20-somethings used sexual banter while writing the show.

Yes, it is a lot like the Friends case, in that the complainants here, as in the Friends case, forgot that hostile-work-environment sexual harassment requires a showing of SEX DISCRIMINATION, as the U.S. Supreme Court observed is required in its 1998 Oncale decision.

The Friends case held that discussions of sex and sexual fantasies by plaintiff’s co-workers did not state actionable harassment claim, since they were not directed at the complainant, much less directed at her based on her sex. See Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions (the “Friends case”), 132 P.3d 211, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2006).

Here, there isn’t even any sexually-motivated conduct. The motivation for the obscenity-laden rants appears to be anger, not sexism. This case is even weaker than the Friends case.

In Walk v. Rubbermaid, and several other cases, the courts have held that profanity, and obscenities not aimed at women based on their gender, do not constitute sexual harassment or an actionable hostile-work-environment claim.

That is the general rule, although there is a bad case in a very liberal circuit which suggests in dictum that mere profanity can be actionable if it has a “disparate impact” on women.

The idea that women are more vulnerable to profanity or rough language is itself sexist, though. In its 1993 decision in the Joseph T. case, the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down on equal-protection grounds a state statute that banned obscenity, but only around “a woman or woman-child,” not around men or boys, finding that the law was based on impermissible stereotypes of women as needing special protection from rough talk.

Women shouldn’t be able to sue over rough or crude language that their male co-workers have to put up with without any legal recourse. That’s sexism, pure and simple.

It doesn’t sound like she’s abusive towards her staff. Considering the revenue this lady must generate, it’s like having a racing bike: the loud noise might freak some people out, but it’s just a sign of no-compromise performance. Maybe she’ll get better soundproofing for her office.

I actually really like this case. I hope it’s pursued to the and I hope many other assistants file similar lawsuits. However, I have ulterior motives.

“The two-page letter claims ‘the secretaries along the hallway are unwillingly subjected to daily barrages of telephonic obscenity-laden screaming matches’ . . . Though Luque acknowledges that no one would ever accuse her of being shy, she says her demeanor is part and parcel of her line of work.”

“part and parcel of her line of work”

This shines a light on a nasty side of the modern legal profession. It’s not necessarily about helping people understand their legal rights anymore. It’s often about intimidation, harassment and yelling the loudest.

P.S. I have no clue whether this has any legal merit.

This is not a lawsuit; it’s just an internal grievance. They are not running to court over this, not hiring lawyers or threatening to sue, they are telling their employer they are unhappy about having to work around this lawyer they consider obnoxious. Isn’t that the way most things ought to be handled? I fail to see why this serves as an example of the overlawyering of America.

BK: yes, in theory. If you don’t understand that they’re creating a paper record in anticipation of litigation, then you’re being naive. If they were merely complaining, they wouldn’t have used the phrase “hostile work environment,” since in fact it’s pretty clear that she’s not being hostile to them at all. And their complaint wouldn’t have gratuitously added that the only thing the firm did when other people complained was to transfer them.

AM: I don’t know what your fascination about “understanding legal rights” is. You read a book if you want to “understand.” You file a lawsuit to settle a dispute.

David,

If it were only that easy. Sure, sometimes you can learn your legal rights by reading a book. In those cases you wouldn’t need to file a lawsuit because you know how that lawsuit will turn out.

But often the law is so vague that the only way you can learn how it applies to your situation, is by asking the one person given the authority to tell you: the judge. So you have to file a lawsuit.

I think the legal profession needs to remember their role in society. Their role is to help citizens learn their legal rights. First by research, and when that leads to vague results by taking the case to a judge.

I just don’t see what yelling, cursing and obscenities have to do with this process.

I write a syndicated advice column (based in science and reason, but it’s also a humor column). Last week, I did one on a guy who described himself as ugly, obese, and possessing a bad personality. All he had going for him, he said, was a huge penis. That’s typical of what’s discussed — at great, sorry, length — in my workplace.

When I interview assistants, I point out a couple of porn films I have sitting out in plain sight: “I’m a girl who has porn films sitting out in plain sight. If this makes you uncomfortable, this probably isn’t the workplace for you.”

Likewise, (I know, I know, I’m assuming the world a reasonable place just for a moment), if you’re a screamer, I think it’s wise to find out if the people working for you find that disturbing — before you hire them.