Amazon cleared in "age discrimination" case

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

While I agree that this woman was in the wrong to lie about her age, there are legitimate reasons why people would want to protect their privacy.

Those people should avoid the limelight. As in, should avoid professions known for the complete and utter lack of privacy.

Those who do not want the public's attention should not devote their lives to seeking the public's attention.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree that as a public figure she can't claim as much privacy as the average person, but everyone is entitled to some privacy. Not about her age perhaps, but there are some common sense limits even for public figures.

This case was, however, about her age, which is easily deduced from records that are public by law.

[DianNC]

We'll soon be able to see her in "Exotic Dancers of Houston" and she has several other projects in post-production as well, according to her IMDB page.

She lost because she couldn't prove her case.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DianNC

So true. I remember reading a few years ago about a young man who was tried and convicted of armed robbery and once in jail, proceeded to sue the State because the pressures of incarceration caused him to have acne.

Anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason against anybody. The news loves stories like that, becuase outrage sells advertising. What they never cover is how quickly those suits generally go away. (And when they don't, there's inevitably far more to the story that you get from the news, that makes it seem, if not reasonable, at least not insanely unreasonable).

And California judges aren't all that hesitent to invoke its vexatious litigant laws when the criteria are met. Attorneys have been disbarred for filing nonsense suits, even. Not enough, but it does happen.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I would imagine the majority of the public wouldn't know her age when they see her in a film. They may go on IMDB later to lookup what else she's done and think, she's 107, she looks good for her age and that's about it.

If companies are not giving her work because of her age, even if she looks good for the part and has the talent, then it's they who are age discriminating. Of course, that's probably hard to prove which is why she's gone after IMDB, however that doesn't make what she's tried to do right imo.

Nearly all characters in movies and on TV are played by actors older than the character. Teenage characters (espcially females) are typical playes by actors in their late 20s or even older. Make up can hide a world of sins, and a decade or two of age. Based on the pictures I've seen related to his article, this woman could easily play a character in her early 20s, and nobody would blink.

I suspect the reason she doesn't get offered many parts is because her credits are all schlocky b-grade horror movies, and she can't act her way out of a wet paper bikini. Plus, there's thousands of actors for every role, of course. Nobody likes to admit they just haven't got what it takes to succeed.

Originally Posted by JoeD

As for privacy, celebs may give up a degree of privacy for been in the public eye, however I feel newspapers often go too far. When a celeb is followed 24/7 just waiting for them to make a mistake that can become front page news, there's something wrong.

Based on my 30+ years of living next door to Hollywood, what's "wrong" is usually that the celebries stalked by the paparazzi are the ones who are famous for being famous, and nothing else. They need that stalkerazzi to continue to be famous, so they do outrageous things for the specific purpose of being caught by a photographer. For every Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton, there's a hundred more famous celebs you just never hear about, because they don't play the game. They rely on their work the make them famous, rather than their fame to get them work.

[DianNC]

That story of the convicted thief actually was out of California and, as I recall, the article mainly dealt with the massive number of frivolous lawsuits emanating from the penal system there that were clogging their courts.

There was discussion of how to deal with it, but I don't remember any specific measures that were proposed or what the final outcome was. I think the article mentioned that some judges had resorted to simply throwing the cases out by refusing to hear them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree that as a public figure she can't claim as much privacy as the average person, but everyone is entitled to some privacy. Not about her age perhaps, but there are some common sense limits even for public figures.

Sure: Paparazzi need to die enmasse.

But publishing publicly available information about a public figure is well within the bounds of what is reasonable.
I'm sure Tom Cruise doesn't enjoy his height being bandied about but he doesn't sue about it.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by JoeD

If companies are not giving her work because of her age, even if she looks good for the part and has the talent, then it's they who are age discriminating. Of course, that's probably hard to prove which is why she's gone after IMDB, however that doesn't make what she's tried to do right imo.

It's not that it's hard to prove, it's that it really doesn't exist, legally, at least not in the same way you would apply it to other types of jobs. If a production company refused to hire a gaffer for the crew due to his age, that would be age discrimination, but refusing to hire an actress because her age doesn't meet what the casting director is seeking for the role isn't age discrimination.

However, I suspect her problems have little to do with her age and much to do with the fact that she's not getting the jobs she wants and needs to point a finger at someone. There are so many factors that go into cast selection, and out of all the people who want a given role, only one can get it.

I doubt that being known as "the actress that sued IMDB" is going to help matters. She was probably blacklisted as a liability as soon as it went public.

[HarryT]

Another point to consider is that it's IMDb's responsibility to provide accurate information on their system, not pander to the foibles of vain actresses.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

It's not that it's hard to prove, it's that it really doesn't exist, legally, at least not in the same way you would apply it to other types of jobs. If a production company refused to hire a gaffer for the crew due to his age, that would be age discrimination, but refusing to hire an actress because her age doesn't meet what the casting director is seeking for the role isn't age discrimination.

If you can play the role and you fit the appearance of the role, should age even be a consideration? Clearly a 70 year old actress is going to have a tough time looking like a 7 year old character, but that's an extreme case. But what of a 40 year old actress playing a 30 year old character? That should be doable, yet hiring someone based upon arbitrary range of ages (say 25 to 35) and that actress is out of the running. I'm not sure how casting is done, but I could quite easily imagine someone being left out of the running based upon a database query simply because computers can't tell the difference.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

If you can play the role and you fit the appearance of the role, should age even be a consideration? Clearly a 70 year old actress is going to have a tough time looking like a 7 year old character, but that's an extreme case. But what of a 40 year old actress playing a 30 year old character? That should be doable, yet hiring someone based upon arbitrary range of ages (say 25 to 35) and that actress is out of the running. I'm not sure how casting is done, but I could quite easily imagine someone being left out of the running based upon a database query simply because computers can't tell the difference.

It has to do with streamlining the casting process. The arbitrary range is a way to filter at the start. Many people are likely ruled out based on age just on paper alone. Headshots are great, but headshots can get out of date quickly. (Headshots are also not always a very good representation of how a person looks on camera. Especially in HD - aging skin is even more obvious.)The idea is for those that end up actually auditioning for the casting team to already be narrowed down quite a bit.

Obviously it's a little different for "cattle call" auditions where groups are being cast as extras, etc. Even then, age ranges are often specified but they know full well that people outside those ranges will show up anyway, so they may state a more narrow range, then filter out those who show up based on actual appearance.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DianNC

That story of the convicted thief actually was out of California and, as I recall, the article mainly dealt with the massive number of frivolous lawsuits emanating from the penal system there that were clogging their courts.

There was discussion of how to deal with it, but I don't remember any specific measures that were proposed or what the final outcome was. I think the article mentioned that some judges had resorted to simply throwing the cases out by refusing to hear them.

The issue in California the last five years isn't frivolous lawsuit, it's the legislature cutting funding to the court system to the point where it can't really function any more. And then cutting it some more. If you file a lawsuit today, it may be 10 years before you get a trial, because of the lack of resources in the courts. And it maybe never, not matter how justified the suit is.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

actress that sued IMDB" is going to help matters. She was probably blacklisted as a liability as soon as it went public.

And will be unblacklisted the moment that somebody thinks they can make money off her (and honestly, I'd be surprised if there hasn't been talk of some kind of reality show with her in it). The only unforgiveable sin in Hollywood is making movies that lose money. If you last project made a lot, you can do no wrong.

She hasn't made any movies that made a lot of money.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

If you can play the role and you fit the appearance of the role, should age even be a consideration? Clearly a 70 year old actress is going to have a tough time looking like a 7 year old character, but that's an extreme case. But what of a 40 year old actress playing a 30 year old character? That should be doable, yet hiring someone based upon arbitrary range of ages (say 25 to 35) and that actress is out of the running. I'm not sure how casting is done, but I could quite easily imagine someone being left out of the running based upon a database query simply because computers can't tell the difference.

Very little is done based on computer analysis in Hollywood. Actors get audtions mostly based on their agents' efforts (which involve a lot more snake oil and graft than ones and zeros), or answering cattle calls - in person.

There's pictures of this woman in some of the stories. It isn't her looks that keep her from getting roles.

[Feher]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But this is not the point. If a 40 year old woman looks 30, you can say that she aged well, she took care of herself, etc., but you know that she is 40. As an actress she might be less likely to get a part for a 30 year old woman, because in people's minds she will be a good looking 40 year old woman.

Ah yes. My post was off topic. This case is a foolish one.
But if she really cared about the issue, she could have filed a case for Right to privacy instead of "Right to Million Dollars"