It spells bad news not just for creative freedom but also for privacy, notes David Bernstein (Nov. 16). See Maura Dolan, “‘Friends’ Makes an Enemy”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 13. For our coverage, see Oct. 19 and links from there.
Posts Tagged ‘harassment law’
Update: “O’Reilly Harassment Case Settled Out of Court”
Per Reuters, “Fox News Channel commentator Bill O’Reilly and a co-worker who had accused him of sexual harassment [see Oct. 18] have agreed to settle and dropped all allegations against each other, lawyers for Fox said on Thursday.” “How could anyone demand $60 million for conversations on which they could have hung up?” wonders Wendy McElroy in her FoxNews.com column (“The Sad Evolution of Sexual Harassment”, Oct. 27). Celia Farber was hoping O’Reilly would fight rather than settle; her take, which arises from personal experience in one of the most celebrated harassment trials of the Nineties, is passionately felt and worth reading in full (“No Sexual Dealing”, New York Press, vol. 17, issue 43). And Beldar has some speculations about the terms of the settlement and what they suggest about the strength of the two sides’ cases.
Calif.’s mandatory harassment training
A new law will require mid-size and larger employers in California to put their supervisors through interactive training aimed at preventing sexual harassment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may have a hard time standing up to feminist demands given his own record on the issue, signed the bill Sept. 29. (Jacqueline McManus, “New law for harassment awareness”, Monterey County Herald, Oct. 8; Peter Nicholas, “Business Sees an Ally in Governor”, L.A. Times/KTLA, Oct. 18). “The law defines a covered ’employer’ as one that employs 50 or more persons, which includes temporary service employees and independent contractors. The law does not specify that the 50 employees must be within California. That means that an employer with 50 total employees may be covered by the law, even if just a few workers are in California.” (“New California Law Mandates Anti-Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors”, Jackson Lewis, Oct. 1) (via George’s Employment Blawg). When Connecticut lawmakers enacted the first such state law twelve years ago, I took a dim view.
NYT on “Friends” harassment case
Speaking of sexual harassment charges involving highly rated TV shows that have caused many readers to consult TheSmokingGun.com, Sunday’s New York Times has a story about Amaani Lyle’s lawsuit claiming to have been scandalized by sexually explicit discussion among the scriptwriters of the comedy Friends (see Jul. 31, Jul. 19, Apr. 23). Inevitably, a law professor — in this case Joanna Grossman of Hofstra — makes an appearance to argue that joke-writers for ribald sitcoms should be held to the same standards of workplace decorum as managers of hymnbook stores (more of her views)(Christopher Noxon, “Television Without Pity”, Oct. 17). And more on the case: Harvey Silverglate, “What Would Rachel Say?”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 4, reprinted at Center for Individual Rights site; (PDF links:) California appellate decision at CIR site; CIR amicus brief.
O’Reilly roundup
I was traveling last week and missed the brouhaha over sexual harassment allegations against TV host Bill O’Reilly, precipitated by his pre-emptive lawsuit charging that the demands of accuser Andrea Machris and attorney Benedict P. Morelli amounted to extortion. The controversy has been covered well by others, however, including Jim Lindgren and Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy, Oct. 13, who discuss the fine line between extortion and “normal” litigation behavior with reference to the example of the Cosby case; William Dyer (“Beldar”, Oct. 13 and Oct. 16), who is critical of the O’Reilly camp’s strike-first legal approach, and much else besides; and Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit and Run” (Oct. 15), who writes from a standpoint opposed to harassment law in the first place. Attorney Morelli was last seen in these columns Nov. 23, 2003, regarding his representation of Wall Street complainant Christian Curry in another sensational case. More: Radley Balko also comments. Update Oct. 29: case settles.
“Who was abused?”
“The kids of the abuse-hysteria generation have grown up. Many are living with the fact that they were part of a big lie. Some, like Ed Sampley, are now trying to make amends.” (Maggie Jones, New York Times Magazine, Sept. 19).
U.K.: toward Christmas pantomime sensitivity
In Devon, England, a community theater producer who faced accusations of hate speech last year after staging a Christmas pantomime entitled Snow White and the Seven Asylum Seekers has announced that he has begun production on a presumably less offensive show, Snow Person and the Seven Completely Ordinary People. The north Devon village of Merton near Okehampton had banned producer Bob Harrod’s pantomime last year following advice from the government’s Commission for Racial Equality and a regional race council, after complaints that the show’s satirical portrayal of asylum seekers might violate laws against racially offensive speech. The show featured seven asylum seekers with names like Chemical Ali, Comical Ali, Back Ali, Dark Ali, and Bowling Ali. The nearby village of Langtree, however, agreed to host the production. (“New target for Snow White writer”, BBC, Sept. 11; Nov. 3 and Dec. 1, 2003)(via Norvell). More on British hate speech laws: Jul. 16, 2004, Dec. 18-19, 2002,
Court: Flatley can sue sex-charge lawyer for extortion
A California appeals court has ruled that Michael Flatley, famed for the dance productions “Riverdance” and “Lord of the Dance”, can sue D. Dean Mauro, “a Waukegan, Ill., attorney who filed a $35 million suit falsely accusing the Irish dancer of raping an ex-stripper in a Las Vegas hotel room.” Twenty-five days after a sexual encounter between Flatley and Tyna Marie Robertson, Robertson called police to claim the encounter had been rape. According to the court ruling, “Mauro spent the next few months calling the dancer’s lawyers … threatening to ‘go public’ with the allegations, to ‘ruin’ Flatley and demanding $1 million for his and Robertson’s silence.” After Flatley sued Mauro for extortion, Mauro unsuccessfully invoked the protection of the state’s “SLAPP” (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) statute and also unsuccessfully claimed that his communications with Flatley’s lawyers were protected by the litigation privilege for lawyer-to-lawyer communication. “The only thing he did was represent his client,” said James Holmes, a lawyer for Mauro. “It’s all privileged.” The original lawsuit by Robertson was withdrawn after Flatley countersued. (Mike McKee, “Calif. Court Revives Lord of the Dance’s $100M Extortion Suit Against Lawyer”, The Recorder, Sept. 3). Update Jul. 30, 2006: Calif. high court agrees Flatley can sue.
Imagine if it had been about the money
“[Attorney Allen] Lowy said that he was not fazed by the suggestion that [New Jersey Gov. James] McGreevey might resign. He said he and Mr. [Golan] Cipel were not seeking a financial settlement, ‘We weren’t concerned with the money,’ Mr. Lowy said.” (David Kocieniewski, “A Governor’s Downfall, in 20 Wrenching Days”, New York Times, Aug. 15). “Sources in McGreevey’s administration said Saturday that Cipel originally demanded $50 million [to not press a harassment complaint] but the figure dropped to $5 million as negotiations progressed.” (“Man in N.J. Gov. Case Says He Is Straight”, AP/ABCNews.com, Aug. 15). More: New Jersey Law Journal, Sept. 8.
Update: “Friends” harassment case headed for Calif. high court
The California Supreme Court, which must know a hot case when it sees one, has unanimously agreed to review the recently reinstated harassment lawsuit in which Amaani Lyle, fired as a writers’ assistant on the TV comedy “Friends”, complained that the atmosphere in the scriptwriters’ office had included joking about women and sex (see Apr. 23, Jul. 19) (Mike McKee, “Calif. Justices Hit Rewind on ‘Friends’ Suit”, The Recorder, Jul. 23).