It’s About Change, Not Just Ageism

Last month, 28 television writers filed a class-action lawsuit that seeks to alter ageist hiring practices in Hollywood that have deprived them of their right to pursue their profession in violation of federal and state civil rights laws. While acknowledging that older writers have “a legitimate ax to grind,” Brian Lowry wrote in his Nov. 1 column (“An Age-Old Question Persists in Television”) that “it’s hard to see” how the suit “will bring about any real change.” I respectfully disagree.

Underlying Lowry’s pessimism is his view that “profit-conscious executives” are “more apt to risk parting with a little pocket change to settle lawsuits” than to hire writers older than 40--at least as long as these executives continue to “presume twentysomethings are best able to write for and appeal to twentysomethings.”

The primary goal of our lawsuit, however, is not merely to compensate writers for the income they have lost to date. The main goal is a court order compelling compliance with state and federal laws in the future. This type of court order (called a “consent decree,” if arrived at by settlement) would require networks, studios and talent agencies to institute measures intended to make age discrimination far more difficult, if not impossible, from continuing.

During the past 30 years, I have litigated scores of cases, which, like this one, have alleged that the defendants were engaging in a systemwide policy or practice of employment discrimination. In these and hundreds of similar such cases brought throughout the country, the plaintiffs have sought structural reform that is designed to ensure that unlawful discrimination does not occur in the future. Such court-ordered structural reform is pivotal to the resolution of most discrimination class-action lawsuits and has brought systemic change, ranging from desegregation of schools to the breaking of glass ceilings in heavy industry for women.

*

In this case, in particular, the phenomenon of age discrimination by employers and talent agencies in Hollywood is so widespread that it has risen to the level of industrywide custom--a custom that has been openly acknowledged by senior officials throughout the entertainment industry.

Should the writers who have brought this suit prevail in a trial on the merits or should “profit-conscious executives” feel compelled to settle the suit, they will not be afforded the option of purchasing the right to continue their ageist hiring practices in exchange for “a little pocket change.” Rather, as in other cases involving the violation of federal and state civil rights laws, they will be required to alter their practices in a manner that is designed to eradicate the unlawful “custom” of ageism and to ensure that older writers are afforded the right to equal opportunity under the law.

*

Paul Sprenger is a founding partner of Sprenger & Lang P.L.L.C. in Washington, D.C., and lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Wynn v. NBC, the complaint for which can be accessed through the case Web site: https://www.writerscase.com.