SUPERVISORS AND TALK SHOW HOSTS

 

 

     The courts, with increasing regularity, receive complaints from female employees who assert that they have been the subject of sexual abuse or harassment by a supervisor. In a recent California Supreme Court case, however, two female employees reported sexual harassment, although they were not the specific targets of the supervisor’s sexual overtures.

 

     The plaintiffs, former employees of the Valley State Prison for Women, asserted that the chief deputy warden of the prison where they were employed provided favorable treatment to numerous female employees with whom the warden was having sexual affairs.

    

     The warden allegedly maintained a sexual affair with his secretary, with an associate warden, and with another department employee.  It was reported that over a period of several years, the warden engaged concurrently in sexual affairs with these three female employees.  The court notes that there was evidence these affairs began in 1991 and continued until 1998.   It was also reported that the three women squabbled over the warden, sometimes in emotional scenes witnessed by other employees.

 

     One of the female employees engaging in a sexual affair with the warden boasted that he “would be forced to give her . . . the promotion or she would ‘take him down’ with her knowledge of ‘everY scar on his body.’”

 

     In two instances, the warden promoted one of the women to facility captain positions in preference to one of the plaintiffs, although the plaintiff was more qualified.  The woman engaging in the affair with the warden “enjoyed an unprecedented pace of promotion to the managerial position of associate warden, causing outraged employees to ask such questions as, ‘what to do I have to do, ‘F’ my way to the top?’”

 

     The court concluded that a hostile work environment was shown to have been created for all employees by such widespread favoritism, evidence of considerable flaunting of the relationships, and the warden’s indiscreet behavior at a number of work-related social gatherings.

 

     In another action alleging abuse of another kind, that of age abuse, entertainer Marty Ingels placed a call to a radio talk show produced by Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc., featuring Tom Leykis.

     The show, according to the allegations of the defense, had the second ranked share of men aged 25-34 radio audience in the Los Angeles market during its time period.

 

     While listening to the Tom Leykis show, Mr. Ingels noted that the host was discussing “luring dates, girls, and being popular” and that Mr. Leykis was providing advice to the young male caller.  Mr. Ingels elected to call the show and to “challenge him on his beliefs and win a moral argument . . . .” 

    

     When Mr. Ingels finally got through to the station, he told the screener that his age was 60.  The screener made jokes about his age and essentially told him that he did not belong on the show.  After being placed on hold for approximately 11 to 12 minutes, Mr. Ingels decided to address the issue of age when he got on the air.

 

     The following is an excerpt of the conversation undertaken between Mr. Ingels and Mr. Leykis:

 

“THE CALLER:  Hey, Tom, I hope you got an answer for me.  I had to actually muscle my way in here, because I am older than your demographic.

 

“TOM LEYKIS:  You’re not just older than by demographic, you’re the grandfather of my demographic.

 

“THE CALLER:  What’s that got to do with what’s in my brain and what I have to say?

 

“TOM LEYKIS:  Because we’re not aiming at people your age, Pops . . . .  I don’t really care how smart you are, Pal.  You know what, we have a targeted demographic on this program; you don’t fit it, period.  You’re way too old, Pops.  You don’t belong on the air.  Call a big band station.  Call somebody else.  Don’t call here.

 

“It’s called targeted demographics.  ‘Oh, it’s all about advertising, isn’t it?’  Yes.  Yes it is.  Do you hear how many commercials are on this show?  We sell lots of advertising, because we have got a targeted demographic that people want to buy, and it doesn’t include people who don’t go out and ride motorcycles and drive expensive cars and drink beer.  Ha, ha, ha.”

 

     As a consequence of the telephone discussion, Mr. Ingels alleged in his complaint that Mr. Leykis had put him on the air and “proceeded to berate and humiliate Ingels and refused to allow Ingels to air his opinions or participate in the show because of Ingels’ age.  As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Ingels suffered a loss of dignity, hurt feelings, and emotional upset and distress in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.  Ingels also seeks treble that amount as allowed by law.”

 

     The action was ultimately dismissed, the court noting that the state had no compelling interest to justify application of state discrimination laws to a radio talk show.

 

     The moral of the story?  Unexpected abuse at the hand of a supervisor is different from abuse to be expected from a radio talk show host.

[This column is intended to provide general information only  and
is  not intended to provide specific legal advice; if you have  a
specific  question  regarding the  law,  you  should  contact  an
attorney  of your choice.  Suggestions for topics to be discussed
in this column are welcome.]


Reprinted from The Journal
Myles M. Mattenson © 2005