Occasional Wife

[James28]

This series, a one-season sitcom that ran on NBC during the 1966-67 season, was about a bachelor (Peter Christopher, portrayed by Michael Callan) who enjoyed the single life, but was blocked from professional advancement simply because he didn't have a wife. His boss (Jack Collins; portrayed by Max Brahms), a baby-food manufacturer, was a staunch believer in marriage and family, because of his product. The bachelor (Peter) asked a young hat-check girl (Greta Patterson; portrayed by Patricia Harty) to pose as his wife in company functions. In return, the bachelor (Peter) sets up the hat-check girl (Greta) in an apartment two floors above his own in Manhattan. Some "man in the middle" in a floor between them (portrayed by Bryan O'Byrne) would always watch their comings and goings. Occasional Wife was one of the first sitcoms to completely eliminate canned laughter. The show's uncredited announcer was Vin Scully. Two questions regarding this series need to be asked right here and now:

1. Would the premise of an employee being denied professional advancement simply because he or she is unmarried still be acceptable today, in fiction and in real life? We can take into account the married couples who refuse to have children, single parents who have no interest in a romantic relationship, and unmarried couples living together with out-of-wedlock children. Nowadays, that boss discriminates against those parties, and it's grounds for a lawsuit.

2. Would Peter and Greta have gotten married for real eventually, resulting in this series's downfall?

[GentlemanJim]

The concept of "being overlooked for professional advancement" is a thorny issue.

I can understand the aspect of an employee not wanting to be discriminated against, and even their willingness to try and exploit civil protections in law if they believe that doing so will advance their cause (even when of a spurious nature)

But, at the same time, I think that employers have a right to define a set of standards they are comfortable with in deciding who to promote.

If the promotion includes a transfer 500+ miles away that uproots the employee from their entire set of friends, you might be setting them up to meet with bad influences. Whereas a guy with a wife and a couple kids might be less likely to troll bars seeking companionship.

So, there is a risk element that I think is bigger than just the employee's personal "rights".

But, with the way our courts are so acclimated towards redress of grievances stemming from perceived-rights issues,...good luck defending that.

[shotzette]

I'm sure that discrimination like that was allowable in the mid 60s, but now it would definitely fall under EEO violations.

Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity
Laws Enforced By the EEOC
The EEOC enforces the prohibitions against employment discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex.” Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020); see also Bart M. v. Dep’t of Interior (Bureau of Land Management), EEOC Appeal No. 0120160543 (Jan. 14, 2021) (decision by the Commission applying Bostock to find discrimination based on sexual orientation).

Federal government employees may file claims of discrimination under the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 EEO process on any of the bases covered under the laws EEOC enforces, and/or may also utilize additional complaint procedures described below, as relevant.

[DJM77]

I've been watching Occasional Wife on Crackle.

[TMC]

Occasional Wife is notable for being one of the first sitcoms not to feature a laugh track, though it is otherwise quite obscure. It turns out, when a show is not remembered, there is probably a reason for its obscurity.