TV Writers | Sprenger + Lang | Class Action Attorneys | A Class Action Plaintiff Law Firm

ICM/Broder Kurland Settlement - August 2008
On August 19, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a five year consent decree reached with talent agency defendants International Creative Management and Broder Kurland (collectively, "ICM"), including authorization to mail and publish notice of the proposed settlement to class members. Under the terms of the consent decree, ICM will pay a total of $4.5 million. In addition, ICM will: 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.

Case Developments Including Appellate Litigation Regarding Privacy Rights - August 2008
In the course of discovery, the parties served discovery requests, including subpoenas on the WGA and related entities and several payroll administrators, seeking information relevant to the proof of a pattern or practice of age discrimination. Pursuant to California law, the court issued a privacy rights notice to all individuals whose personal information may be disclosed to the parties in the course of discovery. Despite the existence of a protective order restricting the use of any personal information, many individuals objected to the disclosure of any personal information. Plaintiffs moved to overrule these objections, except with respect to objections to medical and financial information. On September 19, 2007, Judge Mortimer, who subsequently retired from the bench, denied plaintiffs' motion. (Judge Mortimer's cases have now been reassigned to Judge Elias.) Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a writ petition with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard oral argument on the writ petition on June 26, 2008. On August 14, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion granting the writ petition and issuing a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier orders and issue a new order granting plaintiffs access to the requested information. The Court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

Discovery Phase - December 2005/January 2006
Following the filing of Third Amended Class Action Complaints in some cases, and Fourth Amended Class Action Complaints in others, the parties are engaged in extensive discovery in all cases under the supervision of the three trial judges assigned, including subpoenas for production of electronic data from the Writers Guild entities, the exchange of paper and electronic documents and oral depositions of the parties and third party witnesses. Depending on the trial schedule of each of the three judges, it is anticipated that discovery will continue during 2006, and that one or more cases may be ready for trial of the pattern or practice claims of plaintiffs in late 2006.

Resumption of State Court Litigation 2005
The 23 class actions were reinstated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in January 2005 following our successes at the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, respectively. The Superior Court reassigned the cases to three different trial court judges (Judge Elias - APA, Columbia Tristar, ICM, NBC, Paradigm, Paramount, Shapiro Lichtman, Universal, UTA; Judge Mohr - CAA; Judge Mortimer - Broder, Carsey Werner, CBS, Disney, Dreamworks, Endeavor, Fox, Gersh, Irv Schechter, Time Warner, UPN, William Morris). Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate to assign all cases to a single judge for purposes of efficiency and uniformity of decision-making, which was denied subject to reconsideration.

The Appellate Litigation 2003-2004
On December 22, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied Defendants' various petitions and amici requests in all 23 class actions to review and de-publish the 81 page opinion of the California Court of Appeal of September 14, 2004 (available on line at this website). The Court of Appeal summarized its decision as follows:

These appeals and writ petitions involve 23 separate class action lawsuits filed by hundreds of television writers against (a) twelve different groups of related television networks, studios and production companies (collectively, "employers" or "networks and studios"), and (b) eleven talent agencies. The writers, who are over the age of 40 and members of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), assert that each of the networks and studios has for many years maintained a system-wide policy or practice of age discrimination. The talent agencies, which represent writers seeking television writing opportunities, are alleged to be well aware of the pattern or practice of age discrimination by the employers, and to engage in a pattern or practice of discrimination of their own by refusing to represent and refer older writers to the networks and studios for writing opportunities, instead referring their younger clients. Some of the writers allege they applied and were rejected for television writing employment by the employers, or for representation by the talent agencies. Many more writers allege they were deterred from seeking television writing employment, or representation by the talent agencies for the purpose of obtaining television writing opportunities, as a result of each employer's and talent agency's discriminatory practices. These lawsuits come to us with a significant history. Many of the same writers (51 of them, or about one-third) first sought relief in federal court, filing a single class action lawsuit against all of the networks, studios and talent agencies. The federal suit resulted in an order dismissing several of the writers' claims with prejudice, and dismissing other claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Wynn v. NationalBroadcasting Co., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1067 (Wynn).) After the federal court's ruling, the writers voluntarily dismissed all remaining causes of action without prejudice. They, along with more than 100 other writers, then filed the 23 lawsuits that are now, after demurrer rulings by the trial court, the subject of two sets of appeals and two successive writ petitions, all of which we are considering concurrently.

On December 28, 2004, the Los Angeles Superior Court reassigned all 23 cases so that Judge Charles McCoy, the trial judge whose dismissals and other rulings were reversed and modified by the California Court of Appeal in its September 14, 2004, decision, is no longer assigned to the trial of the cases.

The State Court Litigation Pre-California Supreme Court Decisions of December, 2004 -- Twenty-Three Separate Class Actions
On February 25, 2002, the original 50 Wynn plaintiffs, joined by more than 100 other television writers, filed twenty-three separate class action complaints in Los Angeles Superior Court. These new complaints respond to the federal court order (Wilson, J., Jan. 2002) that all of the defendants may not be sued in one class action and that federal age discrimination laws do not apply to talent agencies. The complaints assert only California state law claims against the same defendants and contain the same core allegations -- that is, each defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination with respect to the hiring or representation of older television writers. On April 11, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended class action complaints adding new plaintiffs in each of the twenty-three cases. In August 2002, the cases were assigned for all purposes to Judge Charles W. McCoy. On October 8, 2002, Judge McCoy held an initial status conference. On October 9, 2002, Judge McCoy issued a Minute Order Re: Briefing Schedule. The Minute Order establishes a briefing schedule for defendants' motions and demurrers and sets a hearing date on January 10, 2003. On October 23, 2003, a television writer filed a related individual action in Los Angeles Superior Court styled Miller v. The WB Network Partners and Twentieth Century Fox Television alleging that he was not promoted and was terminated from his writing position pursuant to the defendants' pattern or practice of age discrimination.

In February 2003, Judge McCoy dismissed all of the twenty-three separate class actions pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs then appealed that decision with respect to the talent agency defendant cases and sought a writ of mandate seeking discretionary review of the decision as it related to the employer defendant cases. The California Court of Appeal granted that writ and agreed to consolidate all appeals for the purpose of reviewing Judge McCoy's decision concerning all defendants. Oral argument was held on June 29, 2004. On September 14, 2004, the Court issued its decisions summarized above and which the California Supreme Court in effect affirmed on December 22, 2004.

The Federal Court Litigation Pre-California State Court Litigation
On October 23, 2000, twenty-eight writer plaintiffs commenced the litigation by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California at Los Angeles. On November 20, 2000, twenty-two additional writer plaintiffs joined the original twenty-eight by filing an amended complaint. The case was assigned to the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson. On January 24, 2002, Judge Wilson issued a 127 page order on defendants' motions to dismiss and to sever. The important rulings contained in the order are summarized here. First, the case may not be maintained as one class action against all of the defendants. Significantly, Judge Wilson did observe: "[I]t would appear that Plaintiff[s] have done all that is required of them up to this point. Were they to proceed in a class action against any one employer, under a ‘pattern-or-practice' claim against that particular employer, the class would most likely be conditionally certified at this point, or at some point later in the proceedings." Second, the case may be maintained against the talent agency defendants under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, but not under the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act. Third, the case may be maintained against the network and studio defendants under the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, but not under the federal Labor Management Relations Act. On March 1, 2002, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of the federal court litigation.

About the Case Should You Call? Firms		e-mail Sprenger & Lang
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 should you call page before contacting us
ICM/Broder Kurland Settlement - August 2008 On August 19, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a five year consent decree reached with talent agency defendants International Creative Management and Broder Kurland (collectively, "ICM"), including authorization to mail and publish notice of the proposed settlement to class members. Under the terms of the consent decree, ICM will pay a total of $4.5 million. In addition, ICM will: 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. Case Developments Including Appellate Litigation Regarding Privacy Rights - August 2008 In the course of discovery, the parties served discovery requests, including subpoenas on the WGA and related entities and several payroll administrators, seeking information relevant to the proof of a pattern or practice of age discrimination. Pursuant to California law, the court issued a privacy rights notice to all individuals whose personal information may be disclosed to the parties in the course of discovery. Despite the existence of a protective order restricting the use of any personal information, many individuals objected to the disclosure of any personal information. Plaintiffs moved to overrule these objections, except with respect to objections to medical and financial information. On September 19, 2007, Judge Mortimer, who subsequently retired from the bench, denied plaintiffs' motion. (Judge Mortimer's cases have now been reassigned to Judge Elias.) Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a writ petition with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard oral argument on the writ petition on June 26, 2008. On August 14, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion granting the writ petition and issuing a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier orders and issue a new order granting plaintiffs access to the requested information. The Court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs. Discovery Phase - December 2005/January 2006 Following the filing of Third Amended Class Action Complaints in some cases, and Fourth Amended Class Action Complaints in others, the parties are engaged in extensive discovery in all cases under the supervision of the three trial judges assigned, including subpoenas for production of electronic data from the Writers Guild entities, the exchange of paper and electronic documents and oral depositions of the parties and third party witnesses. Depending on the trial schedule of each of the three judges, it is anticipated that discovery will continue during 2006, and that one or more cases may be ready for trial of the pattern or practice claims of plaintiffs in late 2006. Resumption of State Court Litigation 2005 The 23 class actions were reinstated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in January 2005 following our successes at the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, respectively. The Superior Court reassigned the cases to three different trial court judges (Judge Elias - APA, Columbia Tristar, ICM, NBC, Paradigm, Paramount, Shapiro Lichtman, Universal, UTA; Judge Mohr - CAA; Judge Mortimer - Broder, Carsey Werner, CBS, Disney, Dreamworks, Endeavor, Fox, Gersh, Irv Schechter, Time Warner, UPN, William Morris). Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate to assign all cases to a single judge for purposes of efficiency and uniformity of decision-making, which was denied subject to reconsideration. The Appellate Litigation 2003-2004 On December 22, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied Defendants' various petitions and amici requests in all 23 class actions to review and de-publish the 81 page opinion of the California Court of Appeal of September 14, 2004 (available on line at this website). The Court of Appeal summarized its decision as follows: These appeals and writ petitions involve 23 separate class action lawsuits filed by hundreds of television writers against (a) twelve different groups of related television networks, studios and production companies (collectively, "employers" or "networks and studios"), and (b) eleven talent agencies. The writers, who are over the age of 40 and members of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), assert that each of the networks and studios has for many years maintained a system-wide policy or practice of age discrimination. The talent agencies, which represent writers seeking television writing opportunities, are alleged to be well aware of the pattern or practice of age discrimination by the employers, and to engage in a pattern or practice of discrimination of their own by refusing to represent and refer older writers to the networks and studios for writing opportunities, instead referring their younger clients. Some of the writers allege they applied and were rejected for television writing employment by the employers, or for representation by the talent agencies. Many more writers allege they were deterred from seeking television writing employment, or representation by the talent agencies for the purpose of obtaining television writing opportunities, as a result of each employer's and talent agency's discriminatory practices. These lawsuits come to us with a significant history. Many of the same writers (51 of them, or about one-third) first sought relief in federal court, filing a single class action lawsuit against all of the networks, studios and talent agencies. The federal suit resulted in an order dismissing several of the writers' claims with prejudice, and dismissing other claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Wynn v. NationalBroadcasting Co., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1067 (Wynn).) After the federal court's ruling, the writers voluntarily dismissed all remaining causes of action without prejudice. They, along with more than 100 other writers, then filed the 23 lawsuits that are now, after demurrer rulings by the trial court, the subject of two sets of appeals and two successive writ petitions, all of which we are considering concurrently. On December 28, 2004, the Los Angeles Superior Court reassigned all 23 cases so that Judge Charles McCoy, the trial judge whose dismissals and other rulings were reversed and modified by the California Court of Appeal in its September 14, 2004, decision, is no longer assigned to the trial of the cases. The State Court Litigation Pre-California Supreme Court Decisions of December, 2004 -- Twenty-Three Separate Class Actions On February 25, 2002, the original 50 Wynn plaintiffs, joined by more than 100 other television writers, filed twenty-three separate class action complaints in Los Angeles Superior Court. These new complaints respond to the federal court order (Wilson, J., Jan. 2002) that all of the defendants may not be sued in one class action and that federal age discrimination laws do not apply to talent agencies. The complaints assert only California state law claims against the same defendants and contain the same core allegations -- that is, each defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination with respect to the hiring or representation of older television writers. On April 11, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended class action complaints adding new plaintiffs in each of the twenty-three cases. In August 2002, the cases were assigned for all purposes to Judge Charles W. McCoy. On October 8, 2002, Judge McCoy held an initial status conference. On October 9, 2002, Judge McCoy issued a Minute Order Re: Briefing Schedule. The Minute Order establishes a briefing schedule for defendants' motions and demurrers and sets a hearing date on January 10, 2003. On October 23, 2003, a television writer filed a related individual action in Los Angeles Superior Court styled Miller v. The WB Network Partners and Twentieth Century Fox Television alleging that he was not promoted and was terminated from his writing position pursuant to the defendants' pattern or practice of age discrimination. In February 2003, Judge McCoy dismissed all of the twenty-three separate class actions pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs then appealed that decision with respect to the talent agency defendant cases and sought a writ of mandate seeking discretionary review of the decision as it related to the employer defendant cases. The California Court of Appeal granted that writ and agreed to consolidate all appeals for the purpose of reviewing Judge McCoy's decision concerning all defendants. Oral argument was held on June 29, 2004. On September 14, 2004, the Court issued its decisions summarized above and which the California Supreme Court in effect affirmed on December 22, 2004. The Federal Court Litigation Pre-California State Court Litigation On October 23, 2000, twenty-eight writer plaintiffs commenced the litigation by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California at Los Angeles. On November 20, 2000, twenty-two additional writer plaintiffs joined the original twenty-eight by filing an amended complaint. The case was assigned to the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson. On January 24, 2002, Judge Wilson issued a 127 page order on defendants' motions to dismiss and to sever. The important rulings contained in the order are summarized here. First, the case may not be maintained as one class action against all of the defendants. Significantly, Judge Wilson did observe: "[I]t would appear that Plaintiff[s] have done all that is required of them up to this point. Were they to proceed in a class action against any one employer, under a ‘pattern-or-practice' claim against that particular employer, the class would most likely be conditionally certified at this point, or at some point later in the proceedings." Second, the case may be maintained against the talent agency defendants under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, but not under the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act. Third, the case may be maintained against the network and studio defendants under the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, but not under the federal Labor Management Relations Act. On March 1, 2002, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of the federal court litigation.
Terms & Definitions Copyright Disclaimer

TV Writers' Cases

The Writers' Class Action Age Discrimination Cases