• Pleadings
• Orders
• Media

About the Case

Learn specifics about the case including updates on where the case is in the litigation process. If you have questions about where you might fit in the case or if you want to help, please visit our CONTACT US page.

CAA Age Discrimination Case:

In the ongoing CAA case, Plaintiffs claim that CAA discriminated against older television writers both in deciding who it would represent and in its lack of zealousness in seeking jobs for those older writers it did represent.  The specific allegations are set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, and the Fourth Amended Complaint which will be filed within ten days after the settlement of the above-referenced nineteen cases becomes effective.

March 15, 2010 is CAA's deadline for filing a "motion for summary judgment" against Plaintiffs who (a) did not seek representation from CAA during the liability period (approximately 1999 to present), and (b) sought representation only through an unsolicited submission.  A motion for summary judgment is a request that the Court rule in CAA's favor based on undisputed facts.  We do not believe that a motion for summary judgment is appropriate at this stage of the case, but if the Court decides to consider the motion, we will oppose it. 

The Court has indicated that, if it decides the motion is appropriate, Plaintiffs will be allowed time to complete discovery and file an opposition to CAA's motion.  Then, to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims survive the motion for summary judgment, we intend to ask the Court to allow Plaintiffs to prosecute their claims as a class action on behalf of other older writers.  Plaintiffs need to survive the motion for summary judgment and prevail on their motion for approval of a class action in order to obtain additional money and potentially other benefits for class members.

We can use the help from as many people as possible in opposing CAA's expected motion for summary judgment and in support of our motion to proceed as a class action.  Please contact us if you (or someone you know):

• are aware of anything said or done by any CAA agent or employee that reflects reluctance to represent older writers or favoritism toward younger writers;
• had your representation by CAA terminated after you were 40 years old;
• unsuccessfully sought representation by CAA after you were 40 years old;
• decided not to seek representation by CAA either because (a) you knew CAA did not consider unsolicited submissions and you had no way to obtain an invitation to submit materials to CAA, or (b) you believed CAA would not be interested in representing you because of your age; or
• are aware of writers, especially younger writers, whom CAA recruited away from other talent agencies.

ICM Age Discrimination Case:

On August 19, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting preliminary court approval of a five year Consent Decree reached with talent agency defendants International Creative Management and Broder Kurland, including authorization to mail and publish notice of the proposed settlement to class members. The Court granted the motion and set December 22, 2009 as the deadline for filing claim forms. 

On January 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the Consent Decree.  Under the terms of the Consent Decree, ICM agreed to pay a total of $4.5 million. In addition, ICM agreed to: enhance communications and training with respect to its anti-discrimination policies; collect and maintain certain representation information; engage a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of its representation and referral practices and to make recommendations to ensure age-neutral selection and referral of tv writer clients; and, regularly report to class counsel on its compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.

On July 22, 2009, the Court approved monetary distributions eligible claimants.

Schechter Age Discrimination Case:

Immediately prior to 2000 when plaintiffs initially filed their lawsuit, Schechter began shutting down its operations and by 2002 it ceased representing all but a few television writer clients.  During the summer of 2006, the parties began settlement negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, plaintiffs and Schechter entered into a Consent Decree which will govern Schechter's representation practices in the event that the company resumes normal business operations.  Although the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in late 2006, the process of notifying class members of the proposed settlement was postponed until other television writers cases were settled. On June 7, 2010, the Court authorized the mailing and publication of Notice which describes the terms of the settlement.  Click Here to view the Court's Stipulation and Order.  A set of Questions and Answers provides more detailed information about the settlement and your rights.