Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 13, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAmerican Idol is making headlines this season, for all of the wrong reasons. Following reports of infighting among the judges, several former contestants are now seeking to file a discrimination lawsuit.
The contestants, who span several seasons, allege that the producers of American Idol have unfairly discriminated against African American contestants by inquiring about arrest records and using them as grounds for disqualification.
According to a letter sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Idol producers have “never once publicly disqualified a white or non-black American Idol contestant in the history of the eleven season production.” It further states that the contestants were not convicted of the crimes at the time they auditioned, “Yet their personal and professional lives remain permanently and severely impaired by [the show’s] continuing violations of our nation’s laws.”
In addition to the fact that three African-Americans—Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino and Jordin Sparks—have been crowned American Idols, the lawsuit faces an uphill battle for several reasons. For instance, in order to benefit from the California laws banning racial discrimination and making it illegal to inquire about arrest records, the contestants must show that they are indeed employees. Although the classification has not been rigorously tested in the court system, reality television producers generally treat participants on their programs as independent contractors.
Additionally, courts have also traditionally provided producers with wide latitude when it comes to casting decisions. As we previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Sports and Entertainment Blog, African American contestants filed a similar lawsuit alleging racial discrimination was behind the shows’ failure to feature a Bachelor or a Bachelorette of color. Although the legal theory differed, the court ultimately found that the First Amendment does protect casting decisions by ABC and The Bachelor’s producers.
“Regulating the casting process necessarily regulates the end product. In this respect, casting and the resulting work of entertainment are inseparable and must both be protected to ensure that the producers’ freedom of speech is not abridged,” the ruling said.
Will this suit still be standing after the votes are cast? We shall see.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Michael Cifelli, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!