It’s almost Valentine’s Day, which means romance is in the air. Romance is certainly in the air at ISIS – although maybe romance isn’t quite the right word to use for what’s going on at Mommy Dearest’s headquarters. Hanky panky would be charitable. A labor lawyer would call it a hostile work environment.
That’s right, I’m talking about Archer – the man and the show. Could anyone be a better date for Valentine’s Day than Archer? The answer, of course, is yes. While he has some charm, it’s very limited and incredibly short lived.
The show itself, on the other hand, has a charm that lasts. Archer, his mother, Lana, Pam, Cyril…they’re all fantastically horrible. It’s like an animated work family version of Arrested Development (which makes sense, given the common matriarch they share). It’s funny, quotable, and clever. But I would never want to work there!
But if you were unlucky enough to be an employee there, would you have to put up with the verbal abuse, the sexual harassment, and the forced drug abuse? No. Get a lawyer immediately! In order to establish a hostile work environment, the problematic behaviors or statements must usually be pervasive and last for a period or time or involve a single incident that was extraordinarily severe. And the problems must be serious enough to actually alter or disrupt the conditions of the employee’s work environment. Finally, the actions or problems must be related to a protected classification, such as the employee’s age, race, gender, or religion. While not every offensive moment on the show targets a protected class, there’s enough there to start several lawsuits!
Most of the employees are guilty of creating a hostile work environment, but is ISIS responsible for its employees’ loathsome (but so watchable!) behavior? ISIS could avoid liability if it could show (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” See Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
