Female writer says Letterman show had 'hostile work environment'

[question everything]

Source: CNN

The persistent sexual politics behind the scenes at late-night talk shows is far from a joke, believes former "Late Night with David Letterman" writer Nell Scovell. Scovell was the second female writer ever hired for "Late Night" when she got the job in 1990, two years after she'd applied. In 27 years, only seven women have held the title of "writer" at either of Letterman's shows, she said in a tell-all essay on VanityFair.com . In 27 years, "Late Night" and its current iteration, "Late Show with David Letterman," have hired only seven women, according to Scovell, who was unavailable for comment.

The talk show was a dream job for the writer, who had penned an episode for "The Simpsons" by the time Letterman called. But when she walked through the doors of 30 Rockefeller Center, she realized working at "Late Night" wasn't the career move she'd hoped for, she wrote. Scovell said she was well aware that Letterman and other "high-level male employees" were rumored to have sexual relationships with female staff members, whom she believed benefited professionally from their office affairs. Needless to say, the work environment was rife with tension.

"Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes," Scovell wrote. "Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no." Although Letterman never made a pass at her, Scovell said that the host did show enough "extra attention" that it was noticed by another writer.

After a few months, she'd "seen enough to know that I was not going to thrive professionally in that workplace ... although there were various reasons for that, sexual politics did play a major part."



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/28/scovell.letterman.vanityfair/

---

No shit! For all the ones who were talking about "consenting adults." When a boss is having an affair with a subordinate this creates a hostile work environment. Period.

[WriteDown]

1. So much for the defenders.

Like I said from the beginning: Position of power.

[movonne]

15. didn't O'rilley do some bad stuff..

[WriteDown]

16. And we roundly criticize him. nt

[No Elephants]

35. Had the woman O'Reilly hit on shown any interest in sleeping with him?

Or in having him try to talk dirty to her?

[WriteDown]

36. Had to look it up...

I was unaware that he sued her first.

On October 13, 2004, O'Reilly filed a preemptive lawsuit against Factor producer Andrea Mackris, her lawyer Benedict P. Morelli, and Morelli's law firm for extortion, contending Mackris had privately threatened to charge O'Reilly with sexual harassment unless he paid her more than $60 million (USD).<72> Later that same day, Mackris filed a complaint of sexual harassment against O'Reilly, contending that he had made sexually explicit phone calls, including a "vile and degrading monologue about sex."<73><74> O'Reilly denied engaging in any physical or sexual assault or "offensive touching." He also alleged that Mackris' motives were financial and political in nature. Both lawsuits were dropped after Fox News and O'Reilly agreed to pay Mackris an undisclosed settlement amount, which, according to the Washington Post, was likely millions of dollars.<75><76>

[No Elephants]

31. I don't think O'Reilly's harrassing an employee equates to comics having mutually consensual

relationships with employees.

[WeDidIt]

2. All it takes is one

The affairs themselves aren't at issue. It's the environment the affairs created.

[marshall]

29. I'm glad to see this becoming an issue again

I remember in the 80s there was a concerted condemnation of such relationships. It does no good for anybody.

[supernova]

3. GD yesterday

Letterman and Me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6866790&mesg_id=6866790

[joeybee12]

4. I doubt the Letterman environment is unique...comdey writing is still

very male-dominated.

[barb162]

5. It's time to get rid of Letterman.

He's a sexist pig.

[rfranklin]

6. Yeah, let's roast him over hot coals!

Pass the BBQ sauce!

[barb162]

10. let him ride off into the sunset with his megamillions; he won't starve.

[question everything]

7. He brings the bucks just like Imus did

But one expected supposedly progressive crowd in DU to recognize this is not merely a private affair between "consenting adults" that was all the rage here.

[barb162]

12. Screw Imus too.

Isn't he doing satellite now or something?

I absolutely refuse to watch Letterman any more.

[question everything]

27. Same here. I was watching him when Obama was there

and on other occasions, but not since his "confession."

[barb162]

14. And while I'm at it, these bozos

are no better than the conservatives screwing others outside their marriages. Hypocritcal behavior on Letterman's part talking about the conservatives or Spitzer or anyone else, wow, look who's talking. Letterman... who is doing the same thing.

[pundaint]

17. But keep Paul and the band.

[harmonicon]

23. umm.... don't watch his show?

It's not like he's a public figure. He's just a normal human being who has a job. Should the personal lives of everyone on the TV be scrutinized on this level? What's the point?

[question everything]

28. CEOs are not public figures, but some had to leave

for similar reasons. The Supreme Court determined that this can create a hostile environment and he should not be exempt.

Either way, a place like DU should not wink and nod but then, that DU is a sexist place was very clear last year. The way Clinton and Palin were talked about had unique elements of sexism that would not have been used had they been men. And, yes, Letterman's "joke" about Palin's 14 year old daughter was one, too.

[No Elephants]

32. The SCOTUS said work place affairs can create a hostile environment? I had not heard that.

Do you mean the California Supreme Court?

[question everything]

39. No, SCOTUS

Title VII, a federal law governing employment discrimination, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex — which the Supreme Court has defined to include harassment that is serious enough to affect the terms or conditions of employment. Sexual harassment takes one of two forms: quid pro quo, or hostile environment. (Sexual harassment is also prohibited by state fair employment laws, but they often mirror Title VII in scope.)

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a person with supervisory authority takes a tangible employment action (such as demotion or firing) against a subordinate employee who refuses to submit to sexual advances. "Sleep with me or you're fired," is the classic example here.

Hostile work environment harassment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is so severe or so pervasive as to create an objectively hostile, abusive, or offensive working environment. An example with which readers might be familiar occurs in the movie "North Country" (which is based on a true story) in which female miners face a range of types of abuse from male co-workers and supervisors at the mine.

Readers may ask, "Hostile from whose perspective?" The answer is that sexual harassment law has long been interpreted to require that an environment be both objectively -- to a reasonable person -- and subjectively -- to the plaintiff, specifically – hostile if the plaintiff is to prevail in her suit.

(snip)

Were there women who were involved with Letterman who were rewarded or singled out because of the relationships? Conversely, were the women and men who were not involved with Letterman affected adversely by the relationships?

(snip)

The struggle comes because Title VII does not apply to all conduct that is inappropriate, immoral, unethical, distasteful, or even demonstrably unfair; it applies only to discrimination. But to answer the legal question whether harassment occurs when an employee is treated worse than the boss's paramour, more probing analysis is necessary.

Although sexual favoritism was first recognized as a potentially valid claim under Title VII in the 1980s, few plaintiffs have succeeded with the claim. The basic problem with these cases is that when a male supervisor favors his girlfriend at work, all other employees are disadvantaged – both male and female. That makes it hard for any of them to prove that their disadvantage is discriminatory on the basis of gender. If a woman says she was disadvantaged by the boss's girlfriend's promotion, then the company or the boss can point to a male co-worker who was disadvantaged in the same way. And if both sexes suffer, some will conclude the harassment was not "because of sex" as Title VII requires.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20091020.html

To prevail in a hostile environment sexual harassment case, an employee must also prove that the harassment was undertaken because of his or her sex – a requirement that has led to complex precedents defining when harassment is, and is not, "because of sex."

[harmonicon]

33. so it's up to the company - fine

It's none of my damn business, and none of yours either. This stuff happens at places of work all over the world. Reacting to tabloid journalism in this way is no different than fussing over what some pop star is doing with some other pop or movie star. Aren't there celebrity gossip sites for this stuff?

[barb162]

42. Letterman is very much a public figure and I would AT ONE TIME

lsiten to his monologues/ jokes discussing government types screwing around. As I said, he's talking? If someone is talking on TV every night about about the government types doing something, as Letterman was, then he should be subjected to the same scrutiny. This is IMHO just as bad as the Republicans going after Clinton about Monica when they were having their own affairs.

[caseymoz]

24. A dilemma: and I am going to get myself burned by pointing this out.

No doubt Letterman ran a terrible work environment for women, even if all I know so far is that he had an affair, and what Nell Scovell has written here.

Liberalism is about sexual egalitarianism and fair work environments, however, isn't tolerance for sexual freedom also a part of that? Maybe I'm an old-fashioned now, coming of age before the 80s, but I seem to remember that. Especially among creative people. If liberals discard Letterman, to be consistent, they would then have to discard 80 percent of their rock music collections, who had many affairs with band members-- or staffers. You could go even earlier and argue that the worst offenders were those like Woodie Guthrie, who absolutely created liberal traditions in American Music.

So, I could see where people want to be generous toward Letterman. How many years of laughs has he given to how many people? His anti-Corporate antics during the '80s mergers were classics that I can't forget.

Don't bring up Polanski-- that was rape.

[TheWraith]

8. So why did neither she nor anybody else file one single complaint, EVER?

Sorry, but any sudden after-the-fact allegations strike me as an easy way to cash in for somebody who's been working only sporadically for the last 6 years.

[Howardx]

9. +1

[barb162]

11. It's fairly typical to not file a complaint. Jeopardizing your job,

possibly getting a lousy reference, etc.

[Plucketeer]

19. That would be understandable, but

many years after the fact???

[barb162]

45. Maybe many years after a person stopped working in that environment?

And the whole thing has lost its financial and emotional "value."

[itsrobert]

20. She created Sabrina, the Teenage Witch

Not really a comedy genius. She probably was way out of her league on the Letterman writing staff. I can see someone trying to place blame somewhere else.

[question everything]

40. Wrote for Murphy Brown, MONK, NCIS

Coach, Charmed, The Critic, The Simpsons and Newhart.

[depakid]

22. Oh don't worry, they're coming...

as you say, it's an easy way to cash in.

[Mz Pip]

25. I've been expecting this

Looks like the civil lawyers are circling.

[caseymoz]

26. Those are hard to win in some companies.

But against a corporate cash-cow like Letterman? You won't win in-house. They won't want to touch it. You would have to take it to court, and the price for losing is very high. With Letterman's wealth, he could tie you in knots with personal lawsuits, forget about winning those. Even if you win, you better hope for a big award, because it would be highly questionable whether anybody in show business hires you afterward. You will be officially retired.

The article was apparently written for quick cash, but that doesn't mean it's dishonest. She might have thought it better to put it totally behind her, until there was money available for recalling it.

What she says factually is more damaging: that there were seven women working in Letterman's writing department, now there are none, all fifty posts are filled by men now. Also that there are no women writers working for Leno and Conan as well. This might be because 1) Women don't like to be writers (absurd); 2) Not enough apply; 3) They are excluded from applying by the informal process of the entertainment industry.

Another question: why did the writing staff for Letterman fall from 7 women to none?

[EFerrari]

30. Because she didn't want to be blacklisted?

[Warpy]

13. It certainly poisons the work environment

and everybody tends to resent both the boss and the person having the affair with him or her.

She'd have a long way to go to prove a hostile environment, though, since banging the boss was neither a condition of employment nor compensation nor promotion, although the bangee probably did enjoy a few perks.

I've been pretty disgusted with this stuff at jobs. However, it's usually the subordinate who shoulders most of the resentment and eventually all of the negative fallout when the affair is over.

It's a really stupid thing to do.

[DeSwiss]

18. And she also said:

From a magazine article written by Rachel Sklar: http://www.mediaite.com/online/nell-scovell-is-my-new-hero/">Nell Scovell Is My New Hero

At this moment, there are more females serving on the United States Supreme Court than there are writing for Late Show with David Letterman, The Jay Leno Show, and The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien combined. Out of the 50 or so comedy writers working on these programs, exactly zero are women. It would be funny if it weren’t true.

- K&R

[Beavker]

21. No excuse...

But it happens everywhere. I have to just quit my job and find another one, no one would be interested in my Memoires of a kid trying to make it in the securities industry to find that the higher ups are screwing female employees and showing favoritism them, family, friends...what's new? Everyone knows that.

Tina Fey's done alright as a female in the business. Guess she screwed Lorn Michaels. So where's the hate for the females allowing this outrage to happen to them?

Just saying. Happens everywhere all the time. Not right, but it does.

[No Elephants]

34. OMG. Some people who work together sleep together!!!1111!!!!

And some of them are even married to other people!!!111!!!

If you read the article she wrote herself, her real beef seems to be lack of opportunity for female comedy writers (such as herself). She also says her reason for leaving was that she did not think she would thrive at Dave's show, and the affairs were only part of the reason.


http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2009/10/david-letterman-200910

[Berry Cool]

37. Yes, there's a bigger pattern of discrimination afoot here that she's talking about

but that doesn't minimize the sexual aspects of it any.

It's really a shame that on DU, you can't complain about people showing favoritism to others on the job based on sexual relationships without being accused of being a prude and a member of the Anti-Sex League who wants to nanny other people and tell them who they can't sleep with...but I guess that's how it is. :shrug:

Look at all the people saying this woman is just whining after the fact, she must not be very funny, and her career trajectory paints her as a has-been, yadda yadda yadda. All because she dared to say that, oh, maybe something Letterman did was wrong.

Either it's people getting way defensive about a guy just because he's funny and they like him, or it's men protecting male privilege, or it's people who pitch a fit every time anyone else suggests that there's a time and a place for sex and maybe, just maybe, this particular time and place (on the job) might not be it.

I'm not anti-Letterman, I'm not anti-male and I'm not anti-sex. But I think when "consenting adults" fail to follow the dictum of "Don't get your meat where you get your bread," trouble inevitably follows. That doesn't mean married couples can't ever have the same employer, or that two on-the-job equals can never date (you just have to be prepared for things to be AWKWARD if they don't work out), or that a manager from this department can't have a relationship with a clerk from that department. What it does mean is that when the people involved are in an unequal position of authority within the same area, making their relationship personal/romantic/sexual is going to create a big mess--not just for them but for the other people in the work environment.

[redqueen]

46. You said it perfectly.

Can't think of anything to add to that, other than this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x492237

[Obamanaut]

38. Did Scovell interrogate herself and provide the answers? Yes, See

third paragraph of OP.

[scribble]

41. ... or maybe not

I am sympathetic to the problems my female co-workers have.

I would be even more sympathetic if I found that even a few of them knew what the term "hostile working environment" means.

... Not just legally, but how a 'hostile work environment' creates extra stress for all workers and actually makes everyone in a working group less productive. It's obvious from Nell Scovell's article on the Vanity Fair website, and from the comments here, that none of you really know what you're talking about.

Go ahead and be hostile yourselves to this reply, boys and girls; but it's sadly true. Collectively, you guys don't know enough about what a 'hostile work environment' is, to be able to dodge it yourselves in your own lives, in a few months' or a few years' time.

=-=-=

I'd like to raise an inconvenient truth for a lot of you (and to Nell Scoville, if she reads DU): Just as food for thought.

Many of the jobs we do require us to perform in very strange ways. It is hard to be a cop. It is also hard to be a stripper in a legal strip club. It is hard to be a Surgeon or a Journalist or a Prison Guard or an Army Private, or even a bookkeeper. It is hard to be a musician or an actor or a painter, or work in a slaughterhouse or on a suspension bridge.

All these jobs and many more, require us to work in group environments that are normally hostile in one way or another. They also can require us to behave in hostile ways ourselves. All these jobs can also present us with coersive threats and real danger, coupled with some pretty strong temptations in the course of doing what we are being required to do.

"Comedy Writer" belongs on this list because writers have to systematically break social conventions and risk seriously offending people in memorable ways; in order to be successful. It is not reasonable for anyone to impose the standards of an Insurance Office on the people who meet in a comedy writers' brainstorming session. We really can't change the rules of war, justice, gravity, comedy, finance or biology for you, just because you are female.

This has apparently escaped Nell Scoville's attention, which seriously limits the usefulness of her article. I am left with sympathy for her experience on the Letterman show and expect to laugh at any sketches she might write. However; I personally would not likely hire her to join my writing team, and am glad that I will never have to work with her.


sc

[Gwendolyn]

47. I don't understand your point.

You're correct that certain professions require different codes of behavior, and creative work often percolates best in a rambunctious environment. Scoville acknowledges that and says most women in the business are willing to leave their pearls and fainting couches at the door. If you're implying that co-worker sex is a necessary part of the creative process, I don't think that's true. It happens a lot for various reasons, but certainly isn't a key ingredient for success.

[earth mom]

43. Sad to hear that Dave allowed such a misogynistic workplace. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

44. I both believe that this is true AND that this is a hit on Letterman

I am not surprised that at least one female staffer has come out and said something.

I am also not surprised the Vanity Fair is covering it.