December 15, 2018

December 14, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 13, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

“Inclusion Riders” On The Storm

Oscar-winner Frances McDormand ended her acceptance speech with a reference to two words – “Inclusion Rider” – that sent many Oscar viewers scrambling to Google her cryptic message. But the term, and its legal implications, are somewhat more complicated than several news and entertainment outlets are reporting today. The term “inclusion rider” was coined a few years ago by Dr. Stacy Smith, the founder and director of the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative  at USC. Dr. Smith delivered a Ted Talk in 2016 describing an inclusion rider as a potential solution to ongoing diversity issues and concerns in Hollywood. Specifically, she described the idea of having A-list actors demand provisions in their contracts that call for all the roles in whatever project they are working on to reflect broader demographics.

There is likely nothing wrong with a narrowly-tailored and creative provision like the one Dr. Smith described in her Ted Talk. Creative types already have in some instances exercised considerable leeway in setting their own casting criteria, and one need look no further than the hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” with its famously diverse casting to understand that under the rubric of creative choice, such standards can pass muster (although they may still face opposition).

Notwithstanding what may happen in the creative/artistic space, explicit demands or requirements based on race, religion, gender, or any other protected characteristic could run into challenges. In an interview backstage last night, McDormand told reporters “I just found out about this last week. It means you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in, not only casting, but also the crew.”  When it comes to a film or television crew, although an actor may request that good faith effort be undertaken to hire a diverse crew, demanding that certain race or gender quotas be met could run afoul of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and comparable state law, which generally bans employment discrimination and quotas by private employers.

An inclusion rider like the one described by Dr. Smith might work in the entertainment industry based on First Amendment and creative license protections. But employers, both in the entertainment industry and outside of it, should be wary of agreeing to riders demanding that specific quotas be met. Those demands, no matter how well-intentioned, could be challenged as being discriminatory.

© 2018 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Anthony J Oncidi, Employment Attorney, Proskauer Rose Law Firm
Partner

Anthony J. Oncidi heads the Labor & Employment Law Group in the Los Angeles office. Tony represents employers and management in all aspects of labor relations and employment law, including litigation and preventive counseling, wage and hour matters, including class actions, wrongful termination, employee discipline, Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, executive employment contract disputes, sexual harassment training and investigations, workplace violence, drug testing and privacy issues, Sarbanes-Oxley claims and employee raiding and trade secret protection....

310-284-5690
Pietro Deserio, Labor, Employment Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm
Associate

Pietro A. Deserio is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. Pietro's practice concentrates on all aspects of labor and employment law. His employment litigation practice in state and federal courts includes class and collective actions and defending claims of discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and violations of wage and hour laws. He is also a member of the Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Group, representing clients in sensitive and significant trade secret and employment matters.

Pietro litigates and counsels clients on matters involving employee movement between competitors, with a focus on the enforceability of restrictive covenants, including:

  • Non-competition
  • Customer non-solicitation
  • Employee non-solicitation
  • Non-disclosure agreements
  • Confidentiality
  • Incentive compensation arrangements
  • Clawback and other remedial provisions
  • International enforcement issues
  • Judicial modification (blue-penciling) of agreements

 

Before joining Proskauer’s Labor and Employment Group in California, Pietro gained valuable experience as an associate in the Firm’s Litigation Department in New York, where his practice included white-collar criminal defense and corporate investigations. He also worked on complex commercial litigation matters at both the state and federal levels that included false advertising, contract and business torts and insurance coverage. Pietro maintains an active pro bono practice, representing individuals charged with various misdemeanors and felonies. He has also partnered with the Legal Aid Society to represent individuals seeking to file conditional sealing motions.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Pietro served in the State Counsel Division of the New York State Office of the Attorney General, as part of both the Litigation Bureau and the Sex Offender Management Bureau.

While at University of Pennsylvania Law School, Pietro completed an externship at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, for which he prosecuted felonies and misdemeanors in the Municipal Court Unit. In addition, he completed a dual-degree program with the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Criminology, for which he was awarded a Master of Science degree.

310.284.4522