If you submitted this story to your favorite television soap opera, they would send you a nice letter rejecting it because it was “over the top” – more coincidences and tangled sexual escapades than their viewers would accept.
But that’s why we have courts – places where a story considered too bizarre for daytime television can find an audience, and ultimately form the basis of a wide-reaching legal opinion.
Consider this court-certified true story: The names of the characters have been changed to resemble those used in daytime soaps (we still think there is hope for this as a script), but otherwise it is pretty much the way the court presented it.
The story opens in a women’s prison (isn’t this great already?) where our young heroine, Amanda, has taken a job. She overhears the deputy warden, Ryan, arguing with an associate warden, Olivia, about his sexual affair with his secretary, Nicole.
The intensity of the argument is fueled by the fact that Ryan is conducting a sexual affair with Olivia, too. Olivia and Nicole are aware of each other’s relationship with Ryan, and have engaged in heated discussions about this, but it is not clear whether either of them know that he is also having an affair with Celeste, another employee at the prison.
Amanda complains to Ryan’s boss, Marlena, about the situation and Marlena says that she has already taken care of it. Presumably as part of Marlena’s solution, Ryan is promoted to warden and transferred to another women’s prison.
And wouldn’t you know it; Amanda gets transferred there, too. Ryan, using his new influence as a warden, manages to override an interview board’s recommendation to get Nicole, who is now some sort of counselor, transferred there as well. Exactly how Olivia ended up being transferred to the same prison isn’t clear, but there she is, too, along with, you guessed it, Celeste, who bragged about using her influence over Ryan to arrange her relocation. (You can see why the soap opera people would reject this; it’s simply beyond belief.)
Ryan’s secretary at the prison, Brooke, is fired after she makes public his affair with Celeste. Meanwhile, Amanda and Celeste are competing for the same promotion. Celeste informs Amanda that Ryan would have to give the job to her (Celeste) or else she would “take him down” with her knowledge of “every scar on his body.”’ Celeste indeed gets the promotion despite Amanda’s superior qualifications.
Some months later, Celeste gets yet another promotion and becomes Amanda’s boss. Meanwhile, Ryan and Nicole are seen fondling each other at “work-related social gatherings,” and Ryan is found in Nicole’s car when she is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence.
Olivia, Nicole and Celeste continue their emotional and public squabbling over Ryan, and Amanda complains about the work environment to the aptly named internal affairs office. Meanwhile, a new chief deputy warden, Erica, has arrived at the prison and proceeds to make Amanda’s life miserable. Eventually, she attacks Amanda and holds her captive for several hours. The reason for Erica’s hostility isn’t clear, but Amanda had declined her repeated dinner invitations and there were rumors of an affair between Erica and Celeste.
Amanda files an official complaint with internal affairs. She is told it will be kept confidential, but someone blabs to Celeste, who immediately begins harassing Amanda – following her home at one point – about her statements to the investigator.
Work becomes so nightmarish that Amanda eventually resigns and files a lawsuit seeking damages.
Amanda’s lawsuit was eventually joined with that of another former employee who also claimed harassment and humiliation at the prison. And that is how their story ended up being recounted by the California Supreme Court in a case officially known as Edna Miller et al. v. Department of Corrections. The case was decided last week in favor of Miller (Amanda’s real name) and Frances Mackey, a co-worker who, unfortunately, did not live to savor the legal victory.
Much has already been written about the court’s decision, which is said to expand the definition of workplace sexual harassment – by accepting complaints from people who were not directly involved in the sexual conduct. But the court has actually been careful to limit the scope of its ruling to situations where workplace sexual activity has gotten out of hand entirely. The fact that your boss is sleeping with that guy from marketing isn’t enough by itself to make it a hostile work environment – even if she gives him the promotion you deserved.
But if your workplace resembles a women’s prison, or a soap opera script, you might have a chance in a California court. It would be tough to top this story, though. If it played on TV, we simply wouldn’t believe it.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant. He also writes “Business 101,” which appears monthly in The Snohomish County Business Journal.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
