According to public records accessed by SHOOT, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has granted preliminary approval to class settlements of pivotal litigation centering on timely payment to “motion picture” workers in California. The agreements, which cover two court cases, are subject to final approval at separate hearings–one scheduled for mid-October, the other for November.
If the settlements indeed get finalized, they would end a contentious legal battle that has been cause for concern in the commercialmaking community dating back to the original main lawsuit filing in Oct. 2000. As earlier reported in SHOOT, the litigation involves a provision in the California State Labor Code requiring that “motion picture” workers be paid no later than 24 hours after being discharged from a job. However in 1998, an amendment to that Labor Code was enacted that enabled employers (production houses and/or payroll companies) to, without penalty, pay crewmembers by the next regularly scheduled pay day. This amendment was written and passed by state legislators and signed into law by then Gov. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).
Lobbying for the amendment were the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers and the Motion Picture Association of America (SHOOT, 5/22/98, p.1). They cited long-established industry hiring practices whereby freelance crewmembers know up front that they will work for set, finite periods of time that end with the wrapping of the project. At that point, crewmembers are free to be hired again for another assignment. Their being discharged from a job upon completion doesn’t mean they are being terminated permanently or precluded again from working for the same production company. The industry also successfully argued at that time that paying crew members within 24 hours can be a difficult proposition logistically when shooting in a remote location or when an independent payroll services company needs reasonable time for wage-related computations.
However, some two-and-a-half years after the amendment took effect, litigation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of a number of crewmembers and other workers. Assorted production companies, the major TV/feature studios and payroll companies were named as defendants.
The litigation contends that timely payment as called for under California’s State Labor Code had not been made to the plaintiffs, who therefore are entitled to recompense per state regulations (SHOOT, 2/22/02, p. 1). Potentially that recompense would have dwarfed the original amount owed, with the day rate multiplying to as much as 30 days of pay per worker. Some of the individual claims in the ’00 litigation date back to October ’96–nearly two years before the amendment took effect.
Furthermore, one of the original claims by plaintiffs regarding spots is that neither the State Labor Code’s “motion picture” provision nor the ’98 amendment applies to TV, commercials and music videos. The provision and the amendment, according to plaintiffs, only cover theatrical features per a narrow definition of the term “motion picture.” Therefore, plaintiffs contend that commercial, music video and TV program crew people must be paid immediately once a job is completed, in order to be in compliance with California law.
In sharp contrast, defendants’ legal counsel asserts that the State Labor Code has always deemed TV commercials as part of the motion picture business and therefore an amendment to that code would clearly cover the spotmaking industry. Additionally, defendants point out that the AICP was involved in helping to bring the amendment about, further underscoring that commercials were understood from the outset to be a part of the ’98 measure.
The primary case pits plaintiff Bill Greenberg–and other crewmembers–against a number of major TV/feature studios, payroll firm and production house defendants (Greenberg et al vs. EP Management Services, Inc., et al). The other case covers police officers on duty for filming (Michael J. Harrington vs. Manpay).
Legal counsel for plaintiffs and defendants are currently prohibited from talking to the media about the cases’ latest developments as a condition of the settlements, which gained preliminary approval in Los Angeles Superior Court last month. Through public records, SHOOT confirmed that the parties agreed to settle–the defendants doing so without it being an admission of any liability.
In fact, the defendants won a major ruling nearly three years ago when L.A. Superior Court Judge Carl West denied plaintiffs’ request to grant class action status for defendants (SHOOT, 11/8/02, p. 1). This meant that the entire universe of production companies (TV, commercials and music videos) could not be grouped into a class action initiative and be tried for alleged violations in the case of Greenberg vs. EP Management Services.
If granted final approval, the recently reached settlement in the Greenberg case would find eligible workers making claims against a pot of a little more than $5.3 million–less certain fees and costs. These funds come collectively from defendants spanning payroll companies, major feature/TV studios and the commercial production industry. The maximum total cash benefit for any particular plaintiff claimant is estimated to be $550. Notices are to be sent out to workers who might be eligible. Furthermore, public notice of the settlement will appear on the Internet and in trade publication and California newspaper ads.
The final approval hearing on the Greenberg litigation is scheduled for November. The final approval court session for the Harrington case is slated for Oct. 14.
Settlement language also calls for designated payroll companies and their affiliates to implement an educational program covering timely payment requirements and labor laws. These training sessions–which are to be conducted annually for at least the next five years–will be offered free of charge to production accountants, payroll clerks and other related accounting/payroll personnel.