The California Supreme Court has dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit by a writers' assistant who worked on the production of the television show Friends.

In the lawsuit, Amaani Lyle, who worked on the show for four months before it fired her, alleged that the writers' use of sexually coarse and vulgar language, including the recounting of their own sexual experiences, during writers' meetings amounted to sexual harassment under California law.

However, the court disagreed, basing its opinion on a number of factors. One reason the court said the vulgar language wasn't unlawful harassment was that the Friends production was a creative workplace that focused on generating scripts for an adult-oriented show, a fact that the show's writers say they disclosed to Lyle during the interview process. The court said the vulgar language and discussions about sex helped fuel story ideas, albeit toned down to air in primetime TV.

"Based on the totality of the undisputed circumstances, particularly the fact the Friends production was a creative workplace focused on generating scripts for an adult-oriented comedy show featuring sexual themes, we find no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the meaning of the California Fair Employement and Housing Act," the court wrote.

Lyle also alleged that the writers made sex-based comments about two of the actresses on the show, which she said created a hostile work environment. She said that writers talked about what they would do sexually with one of the actresses and that one writer talked about a missed sexual opportunity with one of the actresses. She also accused a writer of making a crude remark about one of the actresses' fertility.

However, the court ruled that Lyle failed to provide sufficient evidence that the conduct of the three male writers was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

The court noted the importance of context when looking at sexual harassment lawsuits.

"We do not suggest the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace can never constitute harassment because of sex; indeed, language similar to that at issue here might well establish actionable harassment depending on the circumstances," the court wrote. "Nor do we imply that employees generally should be free, without employer restriction, to engage in sexually coarse and vulgar language or conduct at the workplace. We simply recognize that, like Title VII, the FEHA is not a 'civility code' and [is] not designed to rid the workplace of vulgarity."

Link

• Text of Ruling (PDF)