Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Cameo Clips

By Stan Soocher
June 30, 2010

ACTOR EMPLOYMENT TIME/
CONTRACT TERMINATION

The City Court of Rochester, New York, held that a cabaret theatre breached a guaranteed contract term for actors by firing them when a production closed. Misek v. Downstairs Cabaret Theatre Inc., 2009-SC-20623. Plaintiffs Benjamin Misek, Todd Durham and Lia Menaker were hired by the Downstairs Cabaret Theatre in 2009 to perform in the stage show Country Roads: The Songs of John Denver and in later to-be-specified productions. Justice Ellen Yacknin found that “it is evident that the contract[s] did not provide for the termination of plaintiffs' employment prior to the expiration of their specified minimum employment periods solely because of the closure of Country Roads.”

Downstairs Cabaret argued that the minimum employment term stipulated how long the actors were required to perform, rather than entitled to work. From a public policy perspective, Justice Yacknin found: “As construed by Downstairs Cabaret, the contract obligated the actors to perform in any production for as long as required by Downstairs Cabaret, subject to the actors' four weeks written notice, but simultaneously provided for the immediate termination of the actors' employment before the end of their minimum employment periods, with no advance notice whatsoever, upon the closure of a single production. Such an inequitable interpretation of the contract cannot be countenanced, particularly in light of a more reasonable and equitable interpretation of the contract that provides both parties a guaranteed minimum period of employment.”

The city judge also decided that the theatre owed the actors contractual bonuses for the weeks worked by emphasizing that “as defined by the contract, the bonus is a withheld portion of each plaintiff's earned salary.”

TV-SHOW CREATION DISPUTE/DECLARATORY BID DENIED

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.