Florida man sues 'American Idol'

[Red Dawn]

The guy should thank them for sparring him the embarrassment of stooping to such a low level to get attention for himself. Now if we can just get someone to spare the Intelligent Viewers from having to skip the channel every time this or another one of those lame Reality Shows that are so popular with the lemmings who sit in front of them nightly with drool dripping form their gaping mouths pop up, everything would be right in the TV World.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: cjchaps
This guy should be castrated, and fast!

Yes, fasting is a viable punishment for stupidity IMO...

 

[KeyserSoze]

I thought he was suing them for putting this crap show on over "24" for three weeks.


If so....he had my support







KeyserSoze

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Old ugly people don't help TV ratings.

He doesn't stand a chance in hell.

Viper GTS

And men waiting tables in Hooters doesn't bring in business...but they won.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: tagej
Actually, as much as I dislike idiotic suits, this one may actually have merit.

It does?

According to eligibility rules for the program, people must be between 16 and 24 to audition. The rules also say producers may disqualify anyone from the auditions for any reason.

Am I missing something? The rules clearly state that it's for ages between 16 and 24.

heck, if it says that he's got nothing to stand on.....it's like girls trying to get into the boyscouts or something.....

 

[MrsHoneybee]

Originally posted by: Lithium381

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: tagej
Actually, as much as I dislike idiotic suits, this one may actually have merit.

It does?

According to eligibility rules for the program, people must be between 16 and 24 to audition. The rules also say producers may disqualify anyone from the auditions for any reason.

Am I missing something? The rules clearly state that it's for ages between 16 and 24.

heck, if it says that he's got nothing to stand on.....it's like girls trying to get into the boyscouts or something.....

I agree...what an idiot.

 

[CubicZirconia]

What a joke. If this lawsuit has any merit, it shouldn't. To me this is not the same as typical age discrimination. The guy that is suing isn't applying for some job where age isn't a factor at all. Clearly, the producers are looking to discover a young, new singer who will be popular and make lots of money. If they arn't looking for somewhere who is older than 24, thats their business.

Somewhat unrelated question: If this is age discrimination, is the requirement that states you must be 35 to become president of the United States also age discrimination?

 

[LH]

For example, if I need a child actor, it's pretty easy to show that a 50 year old can not play the part.

How the hell can a 50 year old be a teeny bopper act, let alone do the touring American Idol requires? Sh!t, all the other credible people(Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, The "Boss" etc) dont even appeal to the 13-20 crowds these days. He cant do the job, and its as simple as that.

 

[tcsenter]

See, that's why I don't think this is as "open and shut" as most people think -- there is no plot, no script. The show allows the audience to pick who becomes the "American Idol". Basically, the show would have to prove that nobody over the age of 24 could conceivably perform that 'job function'. That's not easy......

EVERY television program has some type of script and pre-defined plot, with the exception of 'reality' shows like COPS, which are more like news crews following actual people around in their actual jobs, without any direction or script to follow. This particular show, like Survivor, or Joe Millionaire, undoubtedly had a 'script' of some type which outlines the main criteria and creative vision of the show which its creators wanted to produce.

This is not the first lawsuit of its type against television or movie production companies, nor even the first lawsuit of its type using this legal argument. They have all, without exception, failed. It is not likely to be revisited.

The title of the program is completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. They can call the show whatever they wish to call it, "Armenian Sex Symbol", "African Zombie Man", "South American Slut Queen and Part-Time Manicurist ", and the content of those shows need not resemble or adhere or rise to anyone's interpretation of those titles EXCEPT that of the show's creators and producers. Its called "creative license" and is protected First Amendment expression.

Is any of this getting through?

I'm no lawyer, so I dunno. It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

Which will be in the circular file cabinet.

 

[fatalbert]

does anyone else want to try out for American Idol just to be rejected

 

[weezie]

I've got a lawsuit going right now to let me be allowed into the old folk's home. That shuffleboard stuff looks sweet.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Somewhat unrelated question: If this is age discrimination, is the requirement that states you must be 35 to become president of the United States also age discrimination?

no, its in the constitution. theres no higher authority than that in the US, and unlike other parts of that document this one is very clearly stated.

as for what this guy is looking for, its money, plain and simple. he gets a quick settlement and he and his lawyer split $50,000.

 

[tcsenter]

BTW, has anyone seen the female "contestants" on NBC's "Fear Factor"? It would seem that unless you have extra perky breast implants and a pretty hot bod, you aren't going to get on the show. As if flat chested women couldn't do those athletic things as well as large breasted women?

The producers and creators of every television program and movie have a "image" they want those who appear on the production to portray, they are completely and totally free to pursue that image in any manner THEY feel is desirable and effective.

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
So it would be okay with you guys if the show only allowed white people if that's what the director wanted?

Yes.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with his opinion, but it's his show, and he can make of it what he wants.

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
BTW, has anyone seen the female "contestants" on NBC's "Fear Factor"? It would seem that unless you have extra perky breast implants and a pretty hot bod, you aren't going to get on the show. As if flat chested women couldn't do those athletic things as well as large breasted women?

The producers and creators of every television program and movie have a "image" they want those who appear on the production to portray, they are completely and totally free to pursue that image in any manner THEY feel is desirable and effective.

I think you're exactly right in everything you've said.

 

[brxndxn]

I don't care if they said only ages 16 to 24 may compete...

The show is ultimately trying to display "talent" to become the next pop star. If the show is so high and mighty on talent (arrogance expressed by the fuchface british guy), then it should have no requirement for age.

I'm glad he's suing them. This is nothing like McDonald stupid lawsuit. I hate age discrimination. I hate it everywhere. I also hate it when I'm trying to rent a car (I'm 20), not yet 25... when I want to buy beer (the government decides when I, as an adult, get to drink)..

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS


And men waiting tables in Hooters doesn't bring in business...but they won.

And that's a sad reflection upon the American legal system. When I go to Hooters I damn well want to see hooters; anything else is false advertising.

 

[Zebo]

TC so how does the court make the distinction between hooters and silicon factor TV show? I mean it would seem the plaintiffs in both caes are argueeing a man can do a womans jobs so to speak therefore there is sex discrimmination going on.

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Somewhat unrelated question: If this is age discrimination, is the requirement that states you must be 35 to become president of the United States also age discrimination?

no, its in the constitution. theres no higher authority than that in the US, and unlike other parts of that document this one is very clearly stated.

as for what this guy is looking for, its money, plain and simple. he gets a quick settlement and he and his lawyer split $50,000.

Well, the whole "It's in the constitution" bit doesn't really make it the final word... as with amendments, times change, etc, so it COULD be ruled as discriminatory and all of that and be removed in the future.

On a slightly related note, I remember when I was 14 or 15 and we were discussing this I thought "wow, 35 is so old, why do you have to be that ancient to be president?"... Now I'm 19 and thinking "wow, how coudl somebody that young take that much responsibility like that?"... it's funny how much of a difference a few years makes

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Somewhat unrelated question: If this is age discrimination, is the requirement that states you must be 35 to become president of the United States also age discrimination?

no, its in the constitution. theres no higher authority than that in the US, and unlike other parts of that document this one is very clearly stated.

as for what this guy is looking for, its money, plain and simple. he gets a quick settlement and he and his lawyer split $50,000.

Well, the whole "It's in the constitution" bit doesn't really make it the final word... as with amendments, times change, etc, so it COULD be ruled as discriminatory and all of that and be removed in the future.

yes i am fully aware of the amendment process and even if an amendemnt is added stating that anyone of any age can run for president the constitution is still the final word. age discrimination laws, which this guy is suing under, still do not apply.

 

[Nil]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: AvesPKS


And men waiting tables in Hooters doesn't bring in business...but they won.

And that's a sad reflection upon the American legal system. When I go to Hooters I damn well want to see hooters; anything else is false advertising.

Hmmm.. False advertising you say? I smell a lawsuit!

 

[tcsenter]

And men waiting tables in Hooters doesn't bring in business...but they won.

Well you must have a peculiar view of "winning". Hooters was not sued by slighted men, Hooters was sued by the EEOC, a federal agency. The EEOC did not even sue on the behalf of any men who filed complaints because they felt they had been discriminated against.

The EEOC sued Hooters because some feminazi lawyers at the EEOC - and there are many of them at the EEOC - wanted to take a swipe at the 'degrading' institution of promoting women as 'sex objects' which is found in the concept of the Hooters Girl. Most likely feminazi lawyers who look like Janet Reno. These feminists always seem to have looks that can stop a truck. I wonder if there isn't a little bitterness and jealousy at work here? But, I digress...

Hooters settled their case with the EEOC because they didn't want to get into a protracted and expensive legal battle. Like the FTC and other federal agencies, the EEOC can persecute a cause of action in the courts for decades, using the unlimited resources of your tax dollars, and beat companies into submission by having deeper pockets, not by having a superior legal argument, which is what happened in the Hooter's case.

 

[AznMaverick]

Originally posted by: tagej
Actually, as much as I dislike idiotic suits, this one may actually have merit. I would not be surprised if the show quietly settled with him....

What they should have done is let him perform, and then tell him he doesn't have what they were looking for to be the next 'Idol'. However, since they didn't even allow him to perform in the public audition -- strictly based on his age -- there might be a legal issue there. In order to be able to deny him the audition based strictly on his age, the show would probably have to prove that he cannot perform the job (whatever that is) given his age. I don't think they'll have much luck proving that, but you never know.

Imagine for a second if the show had told <insert minority group here> people that they would not be alllowed to audition...... Age discrimination is illegal just as race discrimination is.....

doesn't it say there's some kind of age requirement on the show? i remember last season some dood got kicked off because he was 3 years too old or something...

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
...Like the FTC and other federal agencies, the EEOC can persecute (emphasis added) a cause of action in the courts for decades, using the unlimited resources of your tax dollars, and beat companies into submission by having deeper pockets, not by having a superior legal argument, which is what happened in the Hooter's case.

I think you probably meant to say prosecute, but the term you used certainly fits the facts quite well.

 

[tcsenter]

I think you probably meant to say prosecute, but the term you used certainly fits the facts quite well.

Yes well it was by no coincidence that it fit quite well.

Appellate courts have long held that equal opportunity and discrimination protections DO NOT APPLY to the entertainment industry where the role in question is a crucial component of the entertainment. So while the managers, cooks, and dishwashers at Hooters ARE positions to which equal opportunity and discrimination protections apply, the coveted Hooter Waitress positions ARE exempt from these laws because that role is a crucial component of the entertainment.

There is nothing different here than what goes on in a dinner theatre, where the 'entertainment' comes from one side of the dining room, and the food service comes from the other side of the dining room. Since the food service is separate from the entertainment, there is a clear delineation between 'food service workers' and 'entertainers'. The food service workers are protected by discrimination laws, the entertainers are not.

Hooters simply took that concept and merged the two into one role, where the waitress IS both the food service worker AND the entertainment rolled up into one. There is nothing wrong with that and there is no reason why a position cannot be food service AND entertainment at the same time.