Is Paula Abdul Exit An American Idol PR Stunt? – Interview With Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Is Paula Abdul Exit An American Idol PR Stunt? –

Interview With Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Is Paula Abdul Exit an American Idol PR Stunt?

by Free Britney at August 6, 2009 10:36 am

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/08/is-paula-abdul-exit-an-american-idol-conspiracy/

Despite Paula Abdul's farewell Tweet and Fox wishing her happy trails, the latest American Idol conspiracy theory suggests she's not going anywhere.

Here are a few bits of evidence (albeit circumstantial) that make us wonder if the reality show and the wacky, but entertaining judge are really parting ways:

 •Within an hour of Abdul's bombshell, celebrity gossip maven Bonnie Fuller, late of www.HollywoodLife.com, tweeted that "Abdul has already signed her new deal [with American Idol]. The whole sob story was a pure publicity stunt".

 •Asked to comment if there was no way Abdul wouldn't be back on American Idol come the winter and the launch of the new season, Fox reps didn't respond.

 •On his radio show this morning, Ryan Seacrest said Abdul's departure was real, "as far as I know". Randy Jackson, meanwhile, said "It looks to be true".

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/stars/paula-abdul/page-3.html

•Asked to comment if it was possible for a star and network to cook up a scheme, entertainment attorney John J. Tormey III said, "Anything's possible."

 •Unnamed "television industry executives" told the New York Times they believe "Ms. Abdul's combative stance is simply a negotiating tactic". Of course, it could well be a one-sided tactic, if she really wants $20 million a year.

 •Tormey didn't think it was a reach to suggest Paul Abdul would appear to walk away from a deal in order to sweeten it. "In television" ,the lawyer said, "it's not uncommon for talent to take a hiatus in the event of negotiations".

So? What do you think? While it sounds obvious, the only way we'll know is with the passage of time ... or the instant American Idol get a new judge (today's rumored replacement is Victoria Beckham), or Paula Abdul gets a new gig.

Until then, we say let the conspiracy theories pile up!

Would you miss Paula on American Idol?

Read more:

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/08/is-paula-abdul-exit-an-american-idol-conspiracy/#ixzz2IC8hwqBR

Is Paula Abdul Exit An American Idol PR Stunt? – Interview With Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq., August 6, 2009

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/categories/paula-abdul/page/2/
 

- - - - - - - - - -

News

Paula Abdul Exiting Idol? Yeah, Right

by Joal Ryan Thu., Aug. 6, 2009 6:09 AM PDT

Michael Becker/FOX

It's February 2010. The first singer from American Idol's first live show of the season—let's call him Obligatory Husky Guy (Who Can't Decide If He's Country or Pop)—has hit his last shaky note. Ryan Seacrest leads the poor fellow to face the judges.

Randy Jackson says the performance didn't do it for him, dawg. Kara DioGuardi says something valid but forgettable. Paula Abdul tells him she loves the color of his inner child, but that she preferred the song he sang next week.

Wait a second. Didn't Abdul tweet that she was leaving Idol? Didn't Fox issue the old "wish her the best" kiss of death?

Uh-huh. The leading and latest Idol conspiracy theory says Abdul's not going anywhere except back to Idol, while the two sides act out the greatest hoax since Elvis Presley's "death".

http://www.mesra.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t93565-100.html
 

Why It Could Be True:

• Within an hour of Abdul's Tuesday night bombshell, tabloid maven Bonnie Fuller, late of www.HollywoodLife.com, tweeted that "Abdul has already signed her new deal with Idol. The whole sob story of not getting a deal was a pure publicity stunt". In another entry, Fuller further alleged, "Everyone was into the Paula PR stint [sic]".

• When asked to comment if there was no way Abdul wouldn't be back on Idol come the winter and the launch of the new season, Fox reps didn't respond.

• On his radio show this morning, Seacrest said Abdul's departure was real—"as far as I know." Jackson, meanwhile told Extra, "It looks to be true [emphasis added]".

• When asked to comment if it was possible for a star and a network to cook up such a scheme, entertainment attorney John J. Tormey III told us, "Anything's possible".

Why It Isn't True:

• Tormey finished his thought by adding, "I would hope that a major network would not play a game like that… I think that's a real jump".

• By this morning, Fuller was having second-tweets. She wrote that her sources were now informing her that the Fox/Idol camp was "stunned" by Abdul's exit announcement. "Guess Paula Abdul is as loopy as she appears".

• Seacrest ended his opening remarks on the Abdul matter with a blanket "Not a publicity stunt".

But Wait! Why It Could Be Partly True:

• Unnamed "television industry executives" told the New York Times that they believed "Ms. Abdul's combative stance was simply a negotiating position". Or to put it another way, if this is a stunt, it's a one-sided stunt—and good luck to you, Ms. Abdul.

• Tormey likewise didn't think it was a reach to suggest Abdul would appear to walk away from a deal in order to sweeten it. "In television", he said, "it's not uncommon for talent to take a hiatus in the event of negotiations". To that end, old folks might remember the "fake" Duke boys on The Dukes of Hazzard. Or, less old folks might recall buzz about Nicole Richie being replaced by Kimberly Stewart on The Simple Life.

How We'll Know for Sure, One Way or the Other:
 

• "The only way we'll know is with the passage of time", Tormey said. "I don't know if we're there yet".

• According to Tormey, the second Idol hires a new judge or Abdul gets a new gig, we'll be there—and we'll know: Not a publicity stunt.

________

Need more facts? Check out our complete Paula Abdul coverage.

Paula Abdul Exiting Idol? Yeah, Right – Interview With Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq., August 6, 2009

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b137850_paula_abdul_exiting_idol_yeah_right.html
 

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors1.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

As an entertainment attorney practicing in New York, I see people and companies struggling to address the definition of independent contractor vs. employee, frequently. Anyone who hires workers or is thinking of doing so, in New York or elsewhere in the United States, should be aware of the following. Before hiring anyone, it is critical that one carefully determines with one’s accountant and entertainment attorney or other counsel whether the new hire is to be an “employee”; or, alternatively, an “independent contractor”. The terms have legal and financial import; they are mutually exclusive; and one should never use them interchangeably.

The distinction between the two types of workers is important because, among other things, it is usually more expensive and more administratively inconvenient to hire and pay “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. On the other hand, few persons or companies that hire workers are truly willing to relinquish control over their hires, to a sufficient degree to allow those workers to accurately be characterized as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees. As an entertainment attorney, I frequently encounter business projects of short duration such as a single film shoot, a single album recording, or a single pilot shoot. The question of “independent contractor vs. employee” therefore arises most often in the context of media and entertainment projects of multi-week or multi-month duration. Though the two constructs, “independent contractor” and “employee”, are not necessarily self-defining, the word “independent” is used for a reason, and truly translates to “loss of hiring-party control”. I’ll explain below.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service in (former) “IRS Publication 937” identified 20 “checklist” factors that it considered when determining whether or not an individual worker is an “independent contractor” as opposed to an “employee”. The litmus test has apparently since evolved somewhat. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

The hiring party should review the most updated version of the IRS criteria prior to any hires, and it is probably more important to do so with one’s payroll company and tax accountant, than one’s entertainment attorney. The hiring party should also be aware that the IRS is not the only institution with whom to be concerned regarding the all-important “independent contractor vs. employee” determination. Other governmental agencies have a stake in preventing mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors, too.

For example, the state Department of Labor (state “DOL”) in one’s own home state may apply its own checklist of criteria to distinguish independent contractors vs. employees. One needs to be aware that there is a federal [US] Department of Labor as well as a state Department of Labor. A hiring party needs to comply with the requirements of both. In a perfect world, there should be consistency between the respective “checklists” of the IRS and the applicable DOL, as well as consistency between each agency’s interpretation of those checklists. However, your entertainment attorney and tax accountant will opine to you that the world isn’t perfect, and those interpretations could differ as to what constitutes an independent contractor versus an employee. Therefore, one should be aware as to how a local state DOL characterizes the two different types of workers, too - if different than the IRS characterization. Additionally, from an enforcement perspective, the DOL could challenge a hiring business’ characterization of its workers as “independent contractors” vs. employees, without the IRS joining in on the contest. The IRS and the DOL are separate agencies, although there is a suggestion that they will more thoroughly share electronic data with each other on field data and this issue in the near future.

The “independent contractor” determination can be the proverbial unstable apple cart, easily tipped. An employer, as most know, should withhold taxes from an employee’s pay, and make unemployment contributions with respect to those employees, among other things. Hiring companies in the entertainment field, for example, even if they already have an entertainment attorney and a tax accountant, still often wisely use a “payroll company” to administrate payment obligations to workers, so as not to transgress. The cost of a hiring party mischaracterizing an employee as an independent contractor instead, could be high. If ever in doubt, payroll companies and accountants should skew cautious and conservative when making the distinction for their clients in favor of employees – and the entertainment attorney will usually tell the client to listen to his or her payroll company and tax accountant.

However, let’s say that a hypothetical music recording studio, or film production company, for that matter, hires 20 workers, characterizes them all (in reasonably good faith) as “independent contractors”, but uses no payroll company, tax accountant, or entertainment attorney initially. Let’s further assume that the film production or music studio pays no unemployment insurance or workers compensation contributions with respect to any of the hires, and does not withhold taxes from their paychecks. Then, one independent contractor worker is terminated, and vindictively files with the local state DOL for unemployment compensation, claiming to be a fired “employee” instead. Even after phoning the entertainment attorney and tax accountant to enlist their retroactive help, it may now be too late. The recording studio or film production could now find itself faced with a state DOL that characterizes not just the one claimant-worker - but all 20 workers - as “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. The apple cart tips. The camel’s nose is now in the tent.

The recording studio or film company may be required to litigate administrative hearings on the independent contractor v. employee question, and may thereupon be assessed retroactive unemployment insurance contributions, interest, and penalties with respect to the workers that “should have been paid as employees”. Other actions may also follow, such as a workers compensation audit, and perhaps even findings by the IRS and local tax authorities with respect to claimed monies that “should have been withheld” from the “employees” pay. The argument of, “But I told them they were independent contractors” may be considered a mere ipse dixit proposition and might not wash with the government. The entertainment attorney or the business owner can state the case to the authorities that short-term hires are the bread-and-butter of the local entertainment economy in the jurisdiction and so should be rewarded and not punished, but the adjudicating authorities may not accept that distinction between entertainment and non-entertainment sectors. Their only care may be to decrease the overall number of independent contractors and increase the total number of employees across all industries and sectors.

Could this nightmare have been avoided by the recording studio or film production company, through documentation, prospective use of its entertainment attorney, or otherwise? The answer is “Maybe yes, maybe no”. Please see Part II of this article for a further discussion.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of film, music, television, publishing, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I

Title Metatag:

independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee

Meta Description:

entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee,labor,withholding,film crew,labor,New York

Keywords:

compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, labor, withholding, film crew, labor, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors1.htm