- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
In a case of first impression, the Tennessee Middle District Court recently confronted the issue of racial discrimination in reality television. Plaintiffs Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson—two African American men who were denied the opportunity to be cast as The Bachelor in ABC’s reality-based dating show of the same name—filed a class action suit on behalf of all contestants of color who had applied and been denied the opportunity to star as the title contestant in The Bachelor or The Bachelorette.
Claybrooks and Johnson—who attended different auditions—claim they were treated differently than potential Caucasian contestants by being stopped at the main entrance to the lobby, not being allowed to audition, and being subjected to a significantly shorter audition interview than white males who auditioned.
Plaintiffs filed suit under §1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary forms of relief. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts with private and public companies. The main issue addressed by the court: are casting decisions subject to the federal laws in place for the purpose of preventing racial discrimination?
The Tennessee Middle District Court answered a resounding no. Recognizing the important societal interest in preventing discrimination and the constitutional protections under the First Amendment, the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice. Reasoning that casting decisions, as inextricably tied to the artistic process, were entitled to First Amendment Protections under the artistic freedom of expression.
Though the case was seemingly stopped short in its tracks, it has important legal and social implications. As a case of first impression, other courts have yet to weigh in on casting decisions and anti-discrimination laws. A future court confronted with a similar legal claim could find a compelling governmental interest in promoting diversity and prohibiting discrimination, creating a means of circumventing the broad protections afforded by freedom of artistic expression under the First Amendment.
Tagged with: artistic process • casting • civil rights • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • contracts • courts • discrimination • diversity • entertainment • film/television • First Amendment • first impression • lawsuits • legislation • media • race • racial discrimination • television • Tennessee • The Bachelor • The Bachelorette • U.S. Constitution
Recent Blog Posts
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
- What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution