Amazon cleared in "age discrimination" case

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

None of that changes the fact that she gave them false information with a dishonest intent, nor does it change the fact that your citation says they reserve the right to share information for purposes of fraud investigation.

Lying about her age wasn't fraud. And you will notice that it was 'protection', not 'investigation'. They don't reserve the right to share information in order to investigate anything themselves.

Originally Posted by taustin

The name she uses is, for all intents and purposes, a registered trademark, that she is required to use professionally by SAG. So no, I don't have any problem at all with that.

The name she uses has the same purposes as giving a different date of birth. Despite the fact that it shouldn't matter objectively to playing a role where she would pretend to have a different name and age anyway, using a different name increases the chances of being noticed.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by taustin

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).

Like I said, I don't think this would meet any legal definition of fraud (criminal or in tort), and I think that word is getting thrown around quite a bit just because it sounds so salacious.

My comment was an aside, and not directly to address what you and Sil_liS are arguing about.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Like I said, I don't think this would meet any legal definition of fraud (criminal or in tort), and I think that word is getting thrown around quite a bit just because it sounds so salacious.

How can lying for the specific purpose of personal financial gain be considered anything other than fraud? I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge of the law is hazy at best, but what would else would be necessary in order for it to become criminal fraud?

[TGS]

It's more to do with "injury or loss" than to do with financial gain. For someone to be guilty of fraud it has to be shown that they have caused injury or loss, or the alleged fraudulent act had the potential to cause injury or loss. It is difficult to see how hiring an actress who is older than she claimed to be either causes or has the potential to cause injury or loss, particularly since the business of actresses is pretending to be someone that they are not.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

It's more to do with "injury or loss" than to do with financial gain. For someone to be guilty of fraud it has to be shown that they have caused injury or loss, or the alleged fraudulent act had the potential to cause injury or loss.

Thanks - that makes sense.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by TGS

It's more to do with "injury or loss" than to do with financial gain. For someone to be guilty of fraud it has to be shown that they have caused injury or loss, or the alleged fraudulent act had the potential to cause injury or loss. It is difficult to see how hiring an actress who is older than she claimed to be either causes or has the potential to cause injury or loss, particularly since the business of actresses is pretending to be someone that they are not.

That's right - and typically, the loss has to be caused by the victim relying on your misrepresentation.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Lying about her age wasn't fraud.

Apparently, not everyone agrees with you on that. I suspect the jury didn't, in fact, when they ruled against her.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Like I said, I don't think this would meet any legal definition of fraud (criminal or in tort), and I think that word is getting thrown around quite a bit just because it sounds so salacious.

It's hard to imagine anyone purusing it on that basis, but as I said, lying on your resume is grounds to be fired.

Think of it his way (it's a much better anlogy):

You're a lawyer. Say you want to hire a lawyer for your firm, to practicie a relatively specialized area of law. You need someone with particular training and experience. There are several headhunter companies that will eagerly send you candidates. One of them sends you a candidate that lied on their resume, about something that make a difference in your hiring decision.. You find out they knew this candidate had lied on their resume. Would you be likely to do business with them again? Or would you prefer one of their competitors? That's IMDB's position, once they suspect she has lied in her profile. (Mitigated a little bit by the fact that such lying is pretty normal in Hollywood, and all lawyer jokes aside, it's not among lawyers.)

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

My comment was an aside, and not directly to address what you and Sil_liS are arguing about.

We're not arguing. We're both just repeating ourselves over and over like demented parrots.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How can lying for the specific purpose of personal financial gain be considered anything other than fraud? I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge of the law is hazy at best, but what would else would be necessary in order for it to become criminal fraud?

For it to become criminal fraud, it would have to matter. Lying in Hollywood is an indication that it's a day that ends in "y". Civil fraud is a much easier standard to meet, but again, there would have to be some actual negative effect on somebody. Since she wasn't getting an acting jobs for years before that, and still isn't, it's hard to imagine anybody caring.

But IMDB has a legitimate interest in maintaining accurate information in the pro accounts, which are, in every sense, a resume. If they get a reputation for allowing intentiona lies, nobody will take them seriously.

[latepaul]

OTOH if they get a reputation for changing information without consent they might find they lose potential customers for their Pro service.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by latepaul

OTOH if they get a reputation for changing information without consent they might find they lose potential customers for their Pro service.

The old adage is "80% of your problems are caused by 20% of your customers. Get rid of the right 20%, and you'll double your profits."

They'll lose all their customers if producers don't take them seriously.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

Apparently, not everyone agrees with you on that. I suspect the jury didn't, in fact, when they ruled against her.

Well, it was very clear that you don't agree with me on it, so 'not everyone' would have obviously been the answer to the question 'Does everybody agree with me on that'. But I didn't ask this question, so what could be the point of your post? Perhaps you are trying to suggest that I shouldn't say things that at least one person disagrees with.

Originally Posted by taustin

Think of it his way (it's a much better anlogy):

You're a lawyer. Say you want to hire a lawyer for your firm, to practicie a relatively specialized area of law. You need someone with particular training and experience. There are several headhunter companies that will eagerly send you candidates. One of them sends you a candidate that lied on their resume, about something that make a difference in your hiring decision.. You find out they knew this candidate had lied on their resume. Would you be likely to do business with them again? Or would you prefer one of their competitors?

The analogy doesn't work. When an employer needs a particular training and experience they say so in the job description. Did this actress apply for any roles where the production company specifically requested somebody with the real age under 40 years old as opposed to asking for someone who can play a character under 40?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The analogy doesn't work. When an employer needs a particular training and experience they say so in the job description. Did this actress apply for any roles where the production company specifically requested somebody with the real age under 40 years old as opposed to asking for someone who can play a character under 40?

She obviously intended to get jobs that were intended for actors under 40. Otherwise, why would this case exist?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

She obviously intended to get jobs that were intended for actors under 40. Otherwise, why would this case exist?

For actors who can play the role of someone under 40. If the requirement would be for the real age to be under 40, it would be stated.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

For actors who can play the role of someone under 40. If the requirement would be for the real age to be under 40, it would be stated.

If producers are using IMDB Pro profiles to find people to invite to audition - that's pretty much the only way she has a case at all, after all - and don't invite her because she's over 40, then clearly being under 40 is a criteria. That's her claim.