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.
Corporate transactions can have significant implications for a corporation and its stakeholders. For deals to be successful, companies must act strategically to maximize value and minimize risk. It is also important to fully understand the legal and financial ramifications of corporate transactions, both in the near and long term. Understanding Corporate Transactions The term “corporate […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Ongoing economic uncertainty is forcing many companies to make tough decisions, which includes lowering staff levels. The legal landscape on both the state and federal level also continues to evolve, especially with significant changes to the priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Trump Administration. Terminating an employee is one of the […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
While filing annual reports may seem like a nuisance, failing to do so can have significant ramifications. These include fines, reputational harm, and interruption of your business operations. In basic terms, “admin dissolution for annual report” means that a company is dissolved by the government. This happens because it failed to submit its annual report […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Antitrust laws are designed to ensure that businesses compete fairly. There are three federal antitrust laws that businesses must navigate. These include the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. States also have their own antitrust regimes. These may vary from federal regulations. Understanding antitrust litigation helps businesses navigate these complex […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!