According to the Italian edition of The Local via LiveSicilia, workers on personal breaks have a protected right to watch pornography. The Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome said Fiat had no right to sack the worker, who enjoyed “just a glimpse of the film during a meal break.” The United States may inadvertently go even further in actually paying for employees to watch porn. This is one of the few industries that appears to be booming in the shutdown. There is a reported sharp increase in the watching of porn after federal workers were put on leave. Since these workers will eventually be paid for their missing time, we may outstrip Italy on the provocative issue.
The Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome ruled that car manufacturer Fiat improperly fired a worker in 2008 for watching an adult film on his personal laptop during a break. The worker apparently watched the movie in an electrical supply room.
The court was facing an anomaly in many countries that protects the right to watch pornography, including the United States, and the barring of reviewing such material at work. It is ultimately a moral or social imposes on a work force. In the United States, the first amendment protects against government censorship of material, not such rules imposed by private companies. In Italy, the rules protecting workers are more expansive and protective.
The contrast between the two countries on the issue is fascinating. Indeed, even the presence of pornography has been enough to establish a hostile workplace. In Patane v. Clark, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a lower court on such a sexual harassment claim. The Court stated:
Specifically, the district court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege that she faced an objectively hostile work environment, “because [she] never saw the videos, witnessed [her supervisor] watch the videos, or witnessed [her supervisor] performing sexual acts.” Patane, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 316. However, Plaintiff does allege that she regularly observed [him] watching pornographic videos. This Court has specifically recognized that the mere presence of pornography in a workplace can alter the “status” of women therein and is relevant to assessing the objective hostility of the environment….
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that she was regularly required to handle pornographic videotapes in the course of performing her employment responsibilities of opening and delivering [her supervisors] mail; and that she once discovered hard core pornographic websites that [he] viewed on her workplace computer. Combined with Plaintiff’s other allegations regarding [his] sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace, including her allegation regarding his earlier harassment of [another employee], and with [the employer’s] failure to take any action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s numerous complaints, a jury could well conclude that Plaintiff was subject to frequent severely offensive conduct that interfered with her ability to perform her secretarial functions.
In contrast, a trial court upheld the firing but a court of appeal reversed in favor of the worker. Notably however another court ruled that a worker in a different case was legitimately fired for smoking pot at work. So workers at Fiat and watch porn but not smoke pot while doing so.