creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
8 Oct 2014
Stomachaches

I've had stomachaches for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I called it an "uncomfortable feeling." As an adult,… Read More.

3 Oct 2014
The President's Security

When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president's harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding … Read More.

1 Oct 2014
Helen

Today would be my mother's 88th birthday, which is not so old, but my mother seemed very old eight years ago, … Read More.

Age Discrimination

Comment

I try to keep track of idiotic lawsuits if only to counter my view that, for all its flaws, the legal system actually works better than most people think. Sadly, the idiotic suits — the one against McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, or the one against the dry cleaner who supposedly ruined a lawyer's suit (and offered to pay for it, before getting sued) — get more attention than the vast majority of cases that are filed because of legitimate disputes, which, in a nation governed by the rule of law, are best decided in court rather than by resorting to self-help.

But this is a new one, even to me: An actress has sued Amazon for revealing her age. It's not that they got it wrong. No, it seems the problem is that this almost 40-something actress has gone to great lengths to hide her age — changing her name, purging records, etc. — so she could lie and audition for parts aimed for someone younger. And now Amazon has gone and ruined it for her. Imagine. Such nerve.

She is suing as "Jane Doe" so no one will know who she is — or look up her real age. Now, in my experience, Jane Doe (or Roe) suits are used when the issues involved really are so personal and confidential that access to the courts might effectively be blocked were the party to be forced to use his or her real name. Abortion is a classic example: Roe v. Wade.

But a suit brought by an actress who wants to hide her age?

I understand that age discrimination is a serious problem in the entertainment industry, not only for actors but also for writers and directors. The rule of thumb is that if you haven't made it by 40, you won't. Some years ago, an experienced screenwriter started submitting scripts in the name of a fictitious 20-something and went from being a guy who couldn't get arrested in this town to a hot new writer. It's not entirely irrational. Everyone is looking for the next Steven Spielberg or Aaron Sorkin, for someone who's on their way up, not someone who has presumably peaked already. Unfair, yes. Maybe even unlawful. (The studios and agencies agreed to pay up a few years ago in a suit brought by writers, but since having done so, as anyone will tell you, nothing has changed.)

And the problem is particularly acute for actresses. There aren't enough good parts for women older than 40, and for those few, there's Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and the usual suspects, which doesn't include most of the talented actresses who look familiar, but whom you can't quite name.

That's troubling. When I ask my industry friends about it, they always point to the statistics showing that people my age don't go to the movies very often, as opposed to the teenagers and 20-somethings who will go more than once to movies they like. They are the box office targets, not us.

But what about the older men? Not just the famous ones, but the slightly less recognizable, too? Forty-something men definitely do better than 40-something women, for the simple reason that they can have romantic relationships with younger women. The "Mrs. Robinson" parts and "cougar" roles are definitely a specialty act.

In other industries, it's difficult to justify age discrimination based on customer preferences. The airline industry was the classic example: Their argument that their passengers (mostly male) preferred to be served by attractive young females (a.k.a. stewardesses) failed when courts recognized, rightly, that the primary role of a flight attendant is to ensure the safety of the passengers, not to comfort them, and much less to be the objects of flirtation.

But movie roles present a more complicated picture. They reflect a preoccupation that is not limited to that industry. To oversimplify, what makes men attractive is money and power; what makes women attractive is being attractive, which in our culture means young.

Is that wrong? Sure. Is it unfair to older women? Sure. My friends lament it every day, as they hit brick walls and glass ceilings earlier than many of their male colleagues. And it is especially unfair because women often take time out to raise their children, taking them out of the game when their male colleagues are still in.

But a federal case — or even a state suit? Not by my lights. There are certain problems the courts can't solve, and when people turn to them to do so, they make themselves and the courts look silly. No matter what the result — and I'd bet on a dismissal of this one, on First Amendment grounds if nothing else — time is wasted, and the system pays.

Lawyers are under an ethical obligation not to bring frivolous suits (even if they get on television when they do). It's our job to tell would-be clients, no matter how angry and frustrated, that a lawsuit is not the answer. Doing so may cost us a fee, but not doing so violates our obligations to both the client and the courts.

Somebody did something wrong here, something that is a threat to the respect for the rule of law that is at the core of our system. And it wasn't Amazon.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM



Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
Susan,
Before you make disparaging remarks about the McDonald's hot coffee case, READ THE CASE. Not the colorful and oh-so-clever commentaries about the case, but the case itself. I did and changed my mind, concluding that both the case and the original verdict were quite reasonable. This was the law working the way it should.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:05 PM
Actually Susan, I believe she has a case. To take ANY information from supposedly confidential information could potentially cause financial and or credit problems. Many people use such information to hack into on-line banking accounts of many stars. In this case, it directly hurt her chances of getting certain roles. That is a financial loss to her directly. Years ago, I visited the White House for a Reagan News conference. The only thing that Muffin, the White House Secretary required from me was my name and birth date. With that the required background check was a simple thing....By giving out this woman's birth date, this company gave up information that could start a hacker on the path to hacking into other of her accounts. If you dont think this is a problem for many of these actresses, ask Scarlett Johannson who was recently hacked and her photographs (nude) spewed all over the internet or Selena Gomez , girlfriend of Justin Beiber, who has been the victim of a stalker.
When I give my personal information out to any company to make a purchase, I hope they protect that information or inform me if they intend to pass my information along to anyone else. This just happened to me when Borders asked me if they coulod share my info with Barnes and Noble. They offered an opt out option and I took it. That is what a responsible company does.
Comment: #2
Posted by: robert lipka
Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:08 PM
BS..
The actress was essentially misrepresenting and fraudulent while not being forthcoming abt her age. And then to sue amazon for it seems downright frivolous.
Sure there are many ppl disadvantaged by looks, like unattractive people (wht are the chances an unattractive woman can become a top rung actress) or for that matter, bald men (both in the dating world and in the industry).

But I was also intrigued by the fact that the writer is totally sympathetic particularly to older women. Yeah sure, money and power may make a man attractive. But no one gives a rats a** to a man who has neither.
All unfairness criticisms related to walls an ceilings and generous sympathy goes to the other gender.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Ronnie
Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:58 AM
We need 'loser pay' law to eliminate frivolous law suits, not "ethical obligation" that really doesn't exist in the law profession! Law suits mentioned may never have been initiated!
Comment: #4
Posted by: Early
Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:40 AM
To the author: Generally, I enjoy and agree with your articles, but you have made a bad mistake here. Referring to the McDonald's case as an "idiotic suit" reflects serious errors in judgment, understanding, and compassion. I would recommend spending a few minutes googling "McDonald's hot coffee real facts" or reading about the documentary 'Hot Coffee'. Perhaps, after even a cursory glance at the actual facts, you will change your categorization from idiotic to important. Perhaps any knowledge gained can form the basis of a future column about how even members of the educated, enlightened press are susceptible to powerful marketing; adopting the suggestions of others as truth without any personal knowledge or investigation.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mark Aronowitz
Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:01 PM
Re: Mark

I totally agree!

Isn't Ms. Estrich the first one to complain about 'uniformed' people spouting off and getting it all wrong?

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #6
Posted by: Dennis
Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:05 PM
In reference to your Oct 19th column, where it said "Sadly, the idiotic suits-the one against McDonalds because the coffee was too hot" let me refer you to AndrewUrich.com. Click See Urich Speak and the click AndrewUrich-McDonalds.wmv. I believe you will find it entertaining and informative.
Comment: #7
Posted by: George Urich
Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:04 PM
In reference to your Oct 19th column, where it said "Sadly, the idiotic suits-the one against McDonalds because the coffee was too hot" let me refer you to AndrewUrich.com. Click See Urich Speak and the click AndrewUrich-McDonalds.wmv. I believe you will find it entertaining and informative.
Comment: #8
Posted by: George Urich
Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:05 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 22 Dec 2014
Brent Bozell
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 19 Dec 2014

15 Jun 2011 RomneyCare

4 Nov 2011 Welcome to the Show, Mr. Cain

25 Apr 2008 Lilly's Dilemma