## Facts

- Amaani Lyle worked for about four months as a writers’ assistant on the television show *Friends*.
- The writers’ room functioned as a creative workplace developing scripts for an adult-oriented comedy program that regularly used sexual themes and explicit sexual humor.
- Before hiring, Lyle was told the job would require listening to sexual jokes and discussions and transcribing dialogue that might be used in scripts.
- During her employment, three male writers frequently used vulgar sexual language, discussed sexual experiences and fantasies, and acted out possible scenes as part of brainstorming.
- Most complained-of language was not directed at Lyle or other women in the room, but occurred in the course of generating comedic material.
- Lyle was terminated; the asserted reason was deficiencies in typing and transcription.
- Lyle sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging the environment constituted hostile work environment sexual harassment.

## Issues

1. Whether sexually coarse and vulgar workplace language and conduct, largely not directed at the plaintiff or women generally, constituted harassment “because of sex” under FEHA.
2. Whether the conduct, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive work environment under FEHA.
3. If FEHA liability were found, whether imposing liability for this speech would violate state or federal free speech protections.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and directed affirmance of summary judgment for defendants on the FEHA harassment claim.
- On the undisputed facts, no reasonable trier of fact could find harassment “because of sex” or conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
- Because no actionable harassment was shown, the court did not reach the free speech question.

## Legal Principles

- FEHA hostile environment harassment requires conduct “because of sex,” not merely workplace words or acts with sexual content or connotations.
- Sexually explicit talk may be actionable only when it is directed at an employee (or employees) due to sex, such as gender-targeted derogation or abuse, rather than indiscriminate sexual discussion.
- Hostile environment liability further requires conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, to alter working conditions and create an objectively hostile or abusive environment.
- Context matters in evaluating both sex-based targeting and objective hostility, including job duties and the setting in which the speech occurs; creative work involving sexual themes may affect what an objectively reasonable employee would expect.
- Courts may avoid constitutional questions when a case can be resolved on statutory grounds.

## Conclusion

Sexual language and behavior in a sitcom writers’ room did not constitute FEHA hostile environment harassment where the speech was largely part of script development, not directed at the plaintiff because of sex, and not severe or pervasive enough—given the role, context, and limited duration of employment—to create an objectively hostile workplace.


Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal. 4th 264 (Cal. 2006)