Addressing sexual harassment in television and film is no longer considered taboo in the wake of the #MeToo movement. However, Matlock takes it a step further in its third episode, “A Guy Named Greg,” by adding deeper layers to the conversation.
 |
| Kathy Bates as Madeline "Matty" Matlock in “A Guy Named Greg.” Sonja Flemming/CBS |
Kathy Bates stars as Madeline “Matty” Matlock in this popular CBS series, portraying a clever septuagenarian attorney who shares her name with the legendary TV character. In this recent episode, which aired Thursday night, creator and showrunner Jennie Snyder Urman and her team went beyond merely persuading the audience to believe the accuser. They also illuminated the generational divides and biases that persist regarding the impact of sexual harassment on women.
The stage is set for a broader discussion when Olympia (Skye Marshall) struggles to engage the jury while representing Alex (Danielle Larracuente, Bosch: Legacy), a young and attractive attorney at her firm, in her sexual harassment case against her senior colleague, Jeremy Brooks (Chad Coe). To regain the jury’s attention, the firm's jury consultant—known as “the Human Lie Detector,” Shae Banfield (a new recurring role played by Jane the Virgin favorite Yael Grobglas)—advises Matty to step in.
As Olympia and her colleagues—including her soon-to-be ex-husband Julian (Jason Ritter), the firm’s founder Senior (Beau Bridges), and potential love interest Elijah (Eme Ikwuakor)—prepare Matty, who hasn't tried a case in three decades, in a mock trial with a pretend jury, Matty continues to falter. During one intense exchange, Shae pushes Matty, leading to an emotional revelation.
“You’re not being honest, Matty, why?” Shae demands, approaching Bates’ character and downplaying her inquiries.
“Because I’m faking it,” Matty responds fiercely. “The truth is, I don’t think we should have taken this case. Back in my day, we tolerated comments like that all the time. If things escalated, we just avoided the guy. We didn’t get drunk at a holiday party and end up alone with him.”
A gasp arises from the background as Matty and Olympia turn to see a visibly hurt Alex, whom Matty had previously advised to wear a court outfit that downplayed her figure before the initial court appearance. In the following scene, against the backdrop of New York City, Matty apologizes to Olympia, saying, “I’m so sorry; it’s generational; we just put up with different things back then.” Olympia passionately rebukes her, asserting that Alex doesn’t need to be perfect and that she took the case for the world she envisions for her young daughter.
As Matty prepares for her first court argument, she recalls her own experience with a colleague she refers to as Greg, who “crossed the line” and “got fresh” with her. They even joked about him, but her decision to steer clear of Greg, she later reveals to the jury, kept her from pursuing legal action. Instead, she chose to focus on contracts. “You know it’s funny,” she tells the jury. “It seemed like a small thing back then,” shaking her head, “but it completely derailed my dreams, which isn’t small at all, is it?”
By confessing her bias regarding Alex to the jury—rooted in her own experiences as a young working woman—Matty challenges the jurors to shift their thinking from the age-old question of “why did Alex wait so long to report what Jeremy Brooks did?” to “how severe must it have been for Alex to risk everything and finally come forward?”
Urman shares with The Hollywood Reporter that this episode is among her favorites because it achieves so many objectives at once. “Matty is not always right, and we aimed to dramatize some of her blind spots,” she explains. “The truly hopeful aspect is how she evolves.”
Urman elaborates, “If you had asked her if she ever encountered sexual harassment, she would have said ‘no.’ But then she realizes that an incident from her past affected her life more than she acknowledged. She thought she managed it, but she just pivoted. Through this younger woman’s narrative, she recognizes that while she pivoted, it came at a cost. It altered the trajectory of her life and the type of law she practiced. Those are the things that can’t be quantified.”
Urman further discusses Matty’s emotional journey, stating, “This is one of my favorite episodes because of that—the way she learns and the emotional impact of realizing what sexual harassment can cost you. It’s not always evident at the moment, but it becomes clear later. In this instance, it becomes evident 30 or 40 years later, significantly changing her perspective. It also allows her to recognize her enjoyment of being in the courtroom, opening a new avenue for her.”
Bates also praised this crucial episode for Matty, sharing with THR, “I really appreciate this episode, not just because I get to argue a case in court—something Matty has yearned to do for years, though she didn’t realize it until this case emerged. She remembers a pivotal moment in her life that set her on a path that made her abandon her dreams of being a litigator.”
The theme of sexual harassment resonates deeply with Bates. “I can relate because I came of age in the '60s and '70s. It was a different era, just before AIDS curtailed the sexual freedom that emerged in the '60s,” she reveals. “Back then, if you chose to visit a man’s hotel room, you were aware of your intentions. So when the #MeToo movement emerged, my reaction was a very instinctual response shaped by my generational experience.”
“When I observed the challenges faced by young women today—the pervasive harassment they endure not just in specific situations, but daily in workplaces—I think Matty begins to understand that it’s not just isolated incidents; it’s a continuous struggle. Her perspective shifts in the same way that mine did. Therefore, it was a profoundly impactful episode for me to explore and comprehend what young women experience. They desire to express themselves, to feel sexy and have fun, yet shouldn’t have to endure harassment as a consequence.”
Urman reiterates, “It impacts you in ways you may not immediately realize because you develop protective measures.” She adds, “Unfortunately, I don’t know many women who haven’t faced this. In the writers’ room, there were open and honest discussions. One of our writers contributed the line Matty says later: ‘The question is not why it takes her so long to report it; it’s how bad must it have been for her to come forward?’”
Urman continues, “Frequently, we don’t dwell on these issues; we pivot and create boundaries without realizing how they impact us. Why should anyone have to avoid someone due to their poor behavior? What situations and power dynamics are women navigating to avoid uncomfortable circumstances? Matty didn’t confront these questions until this case, where she realizes, ‘Oh, it changed the course of my life,’ and that is not insignificant.”
Urman is careful to point out that coming forward is still a daunting task for many women, influenced by various factors. “There remains a level of privilege regarding who can report incidents and how they are perceived. It can involve financial implications, job security risks, and varies depending on where one is in the country. The seriousness of such incidents can differ greatly,” she explains. “It’s inspiring and aspirational when women speak out and are believed. However, every day presents calculations of ‘if I do this, I may lose my job’ or ‘I won’t be able to provide for my family or pay my bills.’”
“It’s heartbreaking to consider,” she adds. “The privilege of being heard is very real. That’s why we want to showcase more examples on screen to highlight that ‘this is unacceptable’—so that people can recognize their own experiences and feel acknowledged.”
