Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
I've missed so much of the action in this thread that I'm not going to add very much here, but a few things:
1. Generally, age discrimination can be illegal where that discrimination is not for a bone fide reasons. Depending on the State, your mileage may vary on this. Discriminating against an actress because of her age likely isn't prohibited discrimination, but I've never seen a human rights or employment case where this was discussed (keep in mind I'm not an American lawyer, so I generally only watch for the big decisions).
|
Nobody, including the plaintiff, has claimed that the age discrimination is illegal. That's the point, in fact. That she was trying to avoid something that's perfectly legal. (There are special exceptions to a lot of discrimination laws in the US for actors, or anyone who can be considered a "member of the case," especially in California. Go read up on some of the things Disneyland employees have to put up with some time.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
2. Lying about her age would not meet any legal definition of "fraud" in this instance. At most, someone could argue that she came to court with "unclean hands" as courts in common law jurisdictions can apply that rule of equity when appropriate. I doubt this argument would succeed in any event.
|
Nobody in their right mind would call it criminal fraud, but that's not the only form of fraud. Civil fraud is still withing the bounds of what the investigative web site reserves the right to share info over. The reason the plaintiff considered her read age on IMDB a big deal is that it's considerd by the industry to be something of a "calling card" - it's an official, professional presence. Lying it in is
exactly the same as lying on a resume. Nobody's going to go to jail for it, but it
is grounds to be fired (as happens, somethings quite spectaularly).
And IMDB certainly has a legitimate interest in fighting that kind of deceit. If they don't it damages
their reputation in the industry, which directly damages their business. They're double winners here; not only did they win the legal case, they also established that their information is trustworthy. Don't think for a second that isn't the more important victory.