California Supreme Court hears Friends sexual harassment case

Is the sexual banter that usually flies around sitcom writers' rooms a part of the "creative process" and is considered free speech? Or does it create a hostile work environment that can be grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit? That's what the California Supreme Court is trying to decide after hearing arguments in the case of a woman who was fired as a writers' assistant on Friends. She claims her performance was hampered by the frank sexual talk that was bandied about the room.

The show's lawyers, along with some of the justices, argued that the assistant, Amaani Lyle, was warned before she took the job that the language in the room would be of a frank sexual nature. Her lawyers, however, argue that much of the discussion did not contribute to the creative process, but rather that the writers tossed out the sex talk "for their own personal satisfaction."

The case was initially dismissed by the L.A. County Superior court for free-speech reasons, but Lyle appealed to the state's Supreme Court, the lucky bastards.

Ah, to be a fly on the wall of that writers' room, huh?  I would have especially wanted to be there when they "hypothesized on the preferences and proclivities of stars Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox and David Schwimmer," as the E! article I linked to described it. Who wouldn't want to hear about that, especially if the words "Jennifer" and "iced nipples" were involved? Unless, of course, they were talking about Schwimmer; if that was the case, I would have sued them myself.