Is it just me who was disappointed in the Desperate Housewives case filed by Nicolette Sheridan?  I’m not talking about the mistrial, I’m talking about the utter lack of sensational testimony.   


When I first heard about the trial, I kept an eye out for news, sure that lots of juicy tidbits about tantrums on the set, either by Ms. Sheridan or Marc Cherry, were going to come to light. 


I hoped that one of the other female leads (if not all of them) would parade through court for some good old-fashioned mud-slinging.  Given the show’s over-the-top soap opera story lines, I expected a soap opera in court.


Nothing doing.  Although there were some juicy tidbits about whether Ms. Sheridan was difficult, whether Mr. Cherry touched or "walloped" her, in the end the case proved as big a bore as the non-verdict mistrial.


The one takeaway I got from the trial to pass on to employers came from Mr. Cherry’s testimony about why he touched Ms. Sheridan on the forehead (his version of events).  He indicated that he was merely trying to direct her in the scene, which seems plausible.  However, there was a problem with a couple of other things he said:

  • That he did not feel like he needed permission to touch her; and
  • His explanation that he regularly physically directed the actors on set, including carrying Eva Longoria around on the set. 

I hope it is obvious to employers that, even if an employee is pocket-sized like Ms. Longoria, picking him or her up to carry around is not a good idea.   General rule of thumb:  assume it is never ok to touch an employee without permission.