Does a bodybuilding magazine create a hostile environment? 05-07-03

I am an administrative level officer in a municipal police department. An employee recently left a bodybuilding magazine on a lunch table. The Chief found the cover of a female in a bikini to be offensive in the workplace. Nobody, including females, complained. He now wants to prohibit all reading material in the workplace unless it is a newspaper, or law related book. Is this legal? Is a proposed policy such as this common? Please let me know your opinion.

Ann Kiernan replies:

My opinion is that's unconstitutional! More important, that was the opinion of a federal court in California, when it tackled just about the same problem.

In an effort to prevent sexual harassment, the Los Angeles Fire Department banned Playboy and other sexually-oriented magazines. A fire captain sued, claiming he had a First Amendment right to possess, read, and consensually share his Playboy magazine at his fire station. And the federal court agreed.

To help him reach his decision, the judge explained, he had to read a Playboy magazine. In his opinion, the judge said:

"[The fire captain] has offered testimony that Playboy contains articles relating to politics, sports, arts and entertainment. Playboy also contains stories by prominent authors and interviews with public figures. The Court's perusal of the exhibits confirms this testimony....Accordingly, the Court is compelled to find that his reading of Playboy amounts to expression relating to matters of public concern."

The judge went on to rule in favor of the fire captain:

"Defendants' desire to eliminate sexual harassment in the fire stations is laudable. Defendants must, however, do so in a constitutionally permissible manner. Defendants may not ban the reading of Playboy simply because they disagree with the manner in which Playboy portrays women."

"If defendants choose to impose a content-based regulation on employees' speech, they must produce evidence that the speech contributes directly to a sexually harassing environment. In the present case, they have simply failed to show that plaintiff's quiet reading of Playboy contributes to such an environment. ... Accordingly, the Court must find that the County's sexual harassment policy is invalid as applied to plaintiff's quiet possession, reading and sharing of Playboy magazine."

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles Fire Dep't, 865 F. Supp. 1430 (C.D. Cal. 1994)

Based on the facts of your case, it doesn't sound like your chief has any evidence that the bodybuilding magazine contributed to a sexually-harassing work environment. You may want to look up the court opinion at a local law library.

Note - this case applies only to government work places. Employers in the private sector can ban any reading material they wish.

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.