As if the Source hasn’t had enough problems, now beleaguered Source owners Raymond “Benzino” Scott and David Mays have lost a major lawsuit brought by for Source editor Kimberly Osorio. There is some dispute over the amount of the damages, and it was a little unclear from initial reports exactly what charges the defendants were guilty of. The New York Newsday said the suit did not award Osorio damages for sex discrimination, but they did find that she was fired in retaliation for making sex discrimination claims. Here is a quote from Newsday:
The jury rejected Osorio’s claims that she was subjected to sexual discrimination when she worked at the magazine from 2000 until 2005, becoming the magazine’s first female editor-in-chief.
But it concluded she was fired in retaliation after she made her sexual discrimination claims, complaining of a workplace in which pictures of G-string-clad women hung on the walls and an X-rated movie was shown in the mail room.
On Tuesday afternoon, Osorio expressed satisfaction with what she believed was a $15.5 million verdict, and her lawyers painted it as affirmation that sexual discrimination should not be tolerated at any workplace, despite the jury’s rejection of that claim.
“I definitely hope this has an impact on the attitude of hip-hop toward women,” said Osorio in a news conference. “It was very hard for me emotionally. There was a lot of harm to my reputation.”
I’m waiting for the final outcome, but I think this is a landmark case that sends a signal to some of Hip Hop’s head misogynists. Many women love Hip Hop, but we don’t have to take this sort of brazen anti-woman bigotry. Moreover, the two former owners continue to tarnish their own reputations.
Editor’s Note: Of course, this case is not just about Hip Hop. Sex discrimination is pervasive in many workplaces, but this is one of the first big cases in the Hip Hop industry.
To be sure, there are discriminatory and harassing work places, but it’s also true that “creative” work places often try to excuse their misbehavior by pointing to the nature of their work and the “need” for creative types to flex their imagination. This issue arose when one of the writers for Friends sued for sexual harassment and discrimination. The subtext being that it might be hard to deliver sexual innuendo of the sort peddled by Friends if you couldn’t sexualize your workplace. Funny how that usually works out to the disadvantage of the female workers.
Barbara,
You make a very good point. I know many poets, artists, etc., and I have seen exactly that phenomenon. That who “free spirit” mentality may exacerbate sexism.
Yes, it’s amazing how few of those We Must Be Creative types encourage their female colleagues to, say, put up pin-ups of mostly-naked men from gay porn magazines.
There are a lot of ways that sexual discrimination is shrouded. Creativity is one way, as seems to have happened at Source but employers frequently get away with other forms of sexual discrimination by making up “job performance” issues that belie the facts or they engage in “discrimination plus” activities that penalize a group for a characteristic that group shares. A case in point is what appears to happen at a firm named Imre Communications. This is a very successful PR firm that does not seem to be able to tolerate professionals who are mothers. Any professional woman in this firm who has had a child, or whose parenthood becomes noticeable suddenly becomes an unfit employee, despite her record. Other forms of this might include a person of a cultural group who attends a kind of concert or in some other way demonstrates they are different. Discrimination comes in many guises and so do those who perpetrate it.