Prologue: A few years in the past, our litigation apply included illustration of a few movie studios. Whereas it was enjoyable to go to backlots and (actually) stumble upon film stars, we found that discovery, analysis, and movement apply weren’t essentially any extra thrilling attributable to involvement of above-the-line expertise. Contract regulation continues to be contract regulation, even when the contract was written on a serviette and bears the signature of an Oscar winner.
Now we go to an iris shot of palm bushes swaying in entrance of a courthouse.
There may be nothing boring concerning the latest case of Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC, 110 Cal. App. fifth 183, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 205 (March 28, 2025). In actual fact, it’s boffo field workplace bait. The case encompasses a “that man” actor — somebody you’ve seen in lots of wonderful exhibits and flicks (e.g., Deadwood, Justified). Showing as co-stars are Covid-19 vaccine politics and software of an anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation towards public participation) statute.
Go to an in depth up of the plaintiff, the actor Brent Sexton. His IMDB web page is undeniably spectacular. He was conditionally forged for the position of President Andrew Johnson in a tv sequence based mostly on James Swanson’s wonderful e book, Manhunt: The 12 Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer (listeners of the “Advisory Opinions” authorized podcast would possibly recall that Manhunt was a e book membership choice.) A part of the situation was that the actor wanted to be vaccinated towards Covid-19.
Filming of Manhunt was scheduled to start in 2022. At the moment, issues over transmission of the COVID-19 virus have been excessive. The movie studio, counting on the then medical consensus, chosen necessary vaccination to advertise security on the Manhunt set. The studio determined that masking, periodic testing, and social distancing could be inadequate as a result of actors and crew should function in shut quarters, actors couldn’t put on masks within the historic manufacturing, lags made testing unworkable, vaccination decreased the specter of COVID-19 infections, lots of the actors and different employees have been at a better danger of Covid-19 issues on account of age or pre-existing situations, filming would happen in a location (Georgia) with much less restrictive Covid-19 measures, which means there was an elevated off-set danger of publicity, and necessary vaccinations decreased the chance of manufacturing disruptions
The actor sought a medical exemption from the vaccine requirement, based mostly on his historical past of blood clotting from thrombocytopenia and deep vein thrombosis. The studio thought-about the exemption request, however finally rejected it and, as they are saying within the biz, went in a unique course. Sexton didn’t get the position, which might have earned him over a half 1,000,000 {dollars}. He sued the studio for invasion of privateness, incapacity discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to interact in an interactive course of.
The studio filed a movement beneath the Anti-SLAPP statute. Do you keep in mind how Anti-SLAPP statutes work? California’s anti-SLAPP regulation (Civil Process Part 425.16) was designed to guard events from strategic lawsuits filed to silence critics or intimidate these exercising their proper to talk freely or petition the federal government. The regulation applies to lawsuits stemming from “any act… in furtherance of the individual’s proper of petition or free speech beneath the US Structure or the California Structure in reference to a public concern.” The regulation permits defendants (which might embody companies) to strike such lawsuits early in litigation. Does that statute make sense within the context of an actor suing over not getting an element in a television present?
The trial court docket denied the studio’s Anti-SLAPP movement, and the studio took the problem up on attraction. The appellate court docket reversed and dismissed the case. Why?
There are two prongs to the Anti-SLAPP evaluation. First, is the lawsuit directed towards a “protected exercise” that’s freighted with First Modification significance? Second, if the defendant-movant met the primary prong, can the plaintiff carry the burden of displaying claims with no less than minimal advantage? The trial court docket concluded that the studio glad prong one as a result of casting somebody in an essential on-screen position was an act that “formed its tv present’s editorial course.” However the trial court docket dominated towards the studio on prong two, reasoning that the studio’s curiosity in vaccination was not “compelling” and the actor’s privateness declare had no less than minimal advantage. The trial court docket didn’t strike the lawsuit. The attraction adopted.
The appellate court docket agreed with the trial court docket that the studio efficiently invoked the First Modification over the casting determination. The challenged exercise was artistic, not simply logistical, and concerned the studio’s stance on COVID vaccination, a contentious public concern, and its presentation of a controversial historic determine, President Andrew Johnson. (The court docket provides a surprisingly complete and nuanced dialogue of President Johnson’s troubled legacy.)
Logistical preparations and choices have been a part of the studio’s artistic endeavor and affected how the studio selected to talk and what it needed to say. The court docket held that the anti-SLAPP statute covers vital media choices about who will carry out essential roles for a large public viewers. It’s attention-grabbing in itself that personnel choices about on-screen mass media shows about public points are First Modification protected.
The place the appellate court docket parted firm with the trial court docket was on prong two. The plaintiff’s claims have been going nowhere. The grievance lacked even “minimal advantage.” The studio was working beneath COVID security guidelines negotiated with related unions, which included necessary vaccination for all actors engaged on units. The studio’s science advisors agreed.
The court docket took judicial discover of related CDC vaccination findings.The court docket additionally mentioned the legitimate concern over vaccine “free driving.” In brief, the defendant moderately relied on CDC vaccination suggestions. There was no foundation for the court docket to use strict scrutiny. Accordingly, the case boiled all the way down to reasonableness.
The plaintiff’s privateness declare failed as a result of there was no cheap expectation of privateness beneath the circumstances. Refusal to vaccinate for an performing job doesn’t implicate privateness. Employers decide office security guidelines, together with vaccination. Right here, the studio’s guidelines have been cheap beneath the circumstances. Requiring vaccinations in group work settings is outdated hat, and the studio was following the ideas of public well being authorities. (The plaintiff submitted an professional opinion calling Covid vaccines bunk, however the opinion had no sound foundation that will give it any worth beneath Sargon.)
The plaintiff’s refusal to vaccinate made him unqualified for the job, as a result of he couldn’t safely do it. The plaintiff couldn’t authentically play a task in a film as President Andrew Johnson whereas sporting a masks. That will be a loopy “lodging.” His discrimination declare thus was not viable.
The plaintiff’s declare that the studio failed to interact in an interactive course of — no matter which means — failed as a result of … the studio did have interaction. It thought-about the exemption request and it thought-about attainable lodging. It then arrived at an inexpensive determination in favor of vaccination. In accordance with the appellate court docket, the actor’s “place boils all the way down to his declare that he had a proper to impose a doubtlessly lethal danger on coworkers in order that he may act in Manhunt. No precedent helps this declare.”
In what will be described solely as an pleased ending for the movie studio, the trial court docket’s order was reversed, the lawsuit was dismissed beneath SLAPP, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s charges and prices.
