The media industry in New York City is often a cutthroat, dog-eat-dog world. The highly competitive nature of “making it” in New York leaves the workplace vulnerable to bad actors and sexual harassment. Harassers may use the lure of professional advancement or the threat of career damage (or destruction) to place victims in situations where the harasser can pursue their desired ends. When that happens, the harasser has violated the law and should be held accountable. Possibly, so should the parties’ employer(s). When it is time to hold wrongdoers liable, an experienced New York sexual harassment lawyer can provide essential advice and advocacy.
Many times, when one considers sexual harassment in the media industry, one thinks of situations where the victims were on-air employees. Consider the 2016 harassment scandal at Fox News, where alleged victims included afternoon broadcast stars like Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly.
On-air employees are not the only ones at risk, however. Behind-the-camera positions in the New York media industry are also highly coveted, highly competitive, and also places where sexual harassment too often occurs, as an alleged incident – again at Fox News – illustrates.
A.D. worked for the Fox TV affiliate in Tampa when a man – previously unknown to him – allegedly reached out via Facebook. According to A.D.’s lawsuit, the man (J.W.) identified himself as a producer at Fox TV’s New York City affiliate. After the man allegedly encouraged him to do so, A.D. sent in his resume. Fox News hired A.D. as a New York-based producer in the fall of 2008.
A month later, J.W. became a prominent field producer for one of Fox News’ primetime shows. What ensued, according to the lawsuit, was a telltale example of predation, harassment, and assault.
Allegedly, J.W. began “showering” A.D. with gifts and offered to help A.D. “learn the ropes” at Fox and could put in a “good word” for A.D. with top executives who highly valued J.W.’s input.
According to the lawsuit, A.D. visited J.W.’s home in the fall of 2008, where a group of Fox employees would share cocktails and then go to a bar. Allegedly, J.W. “made [A.D.] a drink, but before [A.D.] could finish it, [J.W.] physically and sexually assaulted” him. After A.D. rebuffed the man’s advances, J.W. sabotaged his application for a new job at Fox and threatened more harm if A.D. did not accept J.W.’s sexual offers, according to the lawsuit. After A.D.’s career plateaued, he left and returned to Florida.
Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
A.D.’s lawsuit named J.W. and Fox News Network. The case was a straightforward instance of quid pro quo harassment where a more powerful employee offered to advance a less powerful colleague’s career in exchange for sex and threatened to derail that same career if the younger man rejected him.
Following a defense motion to dismiss the case, the court ruled for A.D. and allowed him to continue his pursuit of the producer and the network. The defense’s argument theorized that A.D.’s allegations could not constitute a hostile work environment under federal Title VII because the assault occurred at the producer’s private residence. The judge explained that the location of the attack was not the essential inquiry for deciding if the victim’s allegations could comprise a hostile work environment. Instead, the “relevant question under Title VII is… whether [the conduct] had “the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.’”
To determine if the victim’s allegations demonstrate the required degree of unreasonable interference, the court must decide if “the conduct had a sufficient impact on” the victim’s work environment “to trigger the employer’s duty to respond.” When analyzing whether a harassment plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate the degree of severity or pervasiveness needed to support a Title VII hostile work environment claim, a harasser is not allowed “to pick and choose the venue for his assaults” and avoid accountability for “those that occur physically outside the workplace,” the court wrote in rejecting the defense’s “it happened outside work so we cannot be liable” contention.