Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions

Decision Date20 April 2006
Docket NumberNo. S125171.,S125171.
CitationLyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 132 P.3d 211, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006)
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesAmaani LYLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Davis Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Rochelle L. Wilcox, Los Angeles; Thomas W. Newton, Sacramento; Lucy A. Dalglish; Harold L. Fuson, Jr., Judith Fanshaw, La Jolla; Karlene W. Goller, Los Angeles; Peter Scheer, San Francisco; Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, James E. Grossberg; Cohn and Marks and Kevin M. Goldberg for California Newspapers Publishers Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Daily Journal Corporation, The Copley Press, Inc., Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, California First Amendment Coalition, Freedom Communications, Inc., and The American Society of Newspaper Editors as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Pillsbury Winthrop, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, George S. Howard, Alicia I. Mead, San Diego; Law Offices of Steven Drapkin and Steven Drapkin for The Employers Group and The California Employment Law Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Law Offices of Manuel S. Klausner and Manuel S. Klausner, Los Angeles, for Individual Rights Foundation, Reason Foundation and Libertarian Law Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

James E. Holst, Oakland, Jeffery A. Blair and Christopher M. Patti, Oakland, for The Regents of the University of California as Amicus Curiae.

BAXTER, J.

Plaintiff was a comedy writers' assistant who worked on the production of a popular television show called Friends.The show revolved around a group of young, sexually active adults, featured adult-oriented sexual humor, and typically relied on sexual and anatomical language, innuendo, wordplay, and physical gestures to convey its humor.Before plaintiff was hired, she had been forewarned that the show dealt with sexual matters and that, as an assistant to the comedy writers, she would be listening to their sexual jokes and discussions about sex and transcribing the jokes and dialogue most likely to be used for scripts.After four months of employment plaintiff was fired because of problems with her typing and transcription.She then filed this action against three of the male comedy writers and others, asserting among other things that the writers' use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct, including the recounting of their own sexual experiences, constituted harassment based on sex within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act(the FEHA)(Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated).

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment on plaintiff's sexual harassment action.We granted review to address whether the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace can constitute harassment based on sex within the meaning of the FEHA, and if so, whether the imposition of liability under the FEHA for such speech would infringe on defendants' federal and state constitutional rights of free speech.

Here, the record discloses that most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace.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 FEHA.Furthermore, to the extent triable issues of fact exist as to whether certain offensive comments were made about women other than plaintiff because of their sex, we find no reasonable trier of fact could conclude these particular comments were severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that was hostile or abusive to plaintiff in violation of the FEHA.Accordingly, we remand the matter with directions to affirm the summary judgment order insofar as it pertains to plaintiff's sexual harassment action, without addressing the potential of infringement on defendants' constitutional rights of free speech.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After receiving a right to sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, plaintiffAmaani Lyle filed this action against organizations and individuals involved in the production and writing of the popular adult-oriented Friends television show, including Warner Bros. Television Production (WBTV), NBC Studios (NBC), Bright, Kauffman, Crane Productions (BKC), and producers-writers Adam Chase, Gregory Malins, and Andrew Reich.Her first amended complaint alleged causes of action under the FEHA for race and gender discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and retaliation for opposing race discrimination against African-Americans in the casting of Friends episodes.The complaint also alleged common law causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of the public policies against race and gender discrimination and retaliation for complaining about race discrimination in violation of the FEHA.

After engaging in discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication.The trial court granted the motion, ruling: (1) NBC and BKC were not plaintiff's employers and therefore were not liable on any FEHA cause of action; (2)plaintiff's FEHA harassment claims were time-barred; (3)plaintiff could not, in any event, factually establish her FEHA claims of race and gender discrimination, retaliation, or harassment as to any defendant; and (4)plaintiff could not establish her common law causes of action for wrongful termination in...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
443 cases
  • Derr v. Kern Cnty. Fire Dep't
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 2013
    ...actions were taken because of her gender and her race, and most of the incidents were facially neutral, but were explained by the defendants as occurring for nondiscriminatory reasons. (Id. at pp. 1378-1379.) Similarly, in Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th 264, another summary judgment appeal, the plaintiff alleged a course of highly offensive sexual banter in the workplace (the writers' room for the television show Friends). (See, e.g., id. at p. 276 & fn. 2.) The evidenceplaintiff may have, unlike the plaintiff in Jones, to prove the behavior was, in fact, motivated by bias against homosexuals. Nor do we know whether defendants may have evidence to establish that the offensive behavior did not occur or, as in Lyle, was not motivated by animus against a protected class of persons. At this stage, the operative pleading adequately alleges a substantial course of offensive conduct motivated by sexual-orientation bias, and plaintiff is entitledSimilarly, in Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th 264, another summary judgment appeal, the plaintiff alleged a course of highly offensive sexual banter in the workplace (the writers' room for the television show Friends). (See, e.g., id. at p. 276 & fn. 2.) The evidence on the summary judgment motion established that the comments were not directed at the plaintiff and for the most part were not directed at any individual, and were a part of the creative process in writing a television...
  • Ghiotto v. City Of San Diego
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 2010
    ...sensibility to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing... and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive. (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 283.) Our Supreme Court has observed that "an employee seeking to prove sexual harassment based on no more than a few isolated incidents of harassing conduct must show that the conduct was 'severe in the extreme, '" but "[a] single harassingviolence is only one factor that may increase the severity of harassment, and a determination whether harassment is severe must depend on an application of "[c]ommon sense, and an appropriate sensibility to social context...." (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 283.) Further, "'[w]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threateningconcerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature. [Citations.] That is, when the harassing conduct is not severe in the extreme, more than a few isolated incidents must have occurred to prove a claim based on working conditions." (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284.) When the severity of harassment is at issue[t]hat inquiry requires careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target.... The real...
  • Caldera v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 09, 2018
  • Elster v. Fishman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 2013
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Tech Employers Be Ready: Understanding Changes to California's Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Laws
    • United States
    • Business Law News (CLA) California Lawyers Association Carolynn Beck, Craig Bolton, and Andrew J. Pecoraro
    • Invalid date
    ...the California legislature amended the FEHA to include gender in its definition of "sex." See id.; 2003 Cal. Stat. 1685.20. Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(j).21. Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 132 P.3d 211, 220 (Cal. 2006) (citing Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 262 Cal. Rptr. 842 (Ct. App. 1989)).22. See, e.g., SB 1300, 2017-2018 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2018).23. Id. (codified at Cal. Gov't Code § 12923).24. 510 U.S. 17, 25-26 (Ginsburg,...