[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215539\' date=\'May 12 2009, 03:27 PM\']Question: Was Bob Barker an employee of CBS? If not, how could CBS force the retirement of someone who was not their employee?[/quote]
Barker is a free agent. But he was also the Executive Producer of a show that CBS contracts for.
I don't doubt your account of events, but how was Deborah Curling harmed by racial discrimination against potential contestants? She was not the victim of this discrimination as she was never a potential contestant.
Curling's lawsuit is not about racial discrimination she experienced, it is about the retaliation she experienced after reporting it, which is illegal.
Curling refused to sign and had to quit her job in order to preserve her legal rights.
It's clear Curling had the option of continuing to work and being bound by the CBS agreement.
Part of the agreement was a non-disclosure/hush clause. Just like Hallstrom before her, Curling did not want to surrender her first amendment right to free speech, especially if it was not mutual and reciprocal. She would also have to agree that if a court later found the document to be illegal, it would still be binding. And alot of other agreements too numerous to name and certainly compromising to agree to.
when did CBS become aware of the conditions on Price that the lawsuit arises from, and what action did they take in response.
CBS does not own any part of TPIR so why is it their problem? It's Fremantle's problem; they own the show lock, stock and barrel.
The lawsuit is against CBS.
As a G-T vet I can tell you that any game show is totally within its rights to cast or not cast anyone they please as a contestant, and to discriminate or not discriminate against any potential contestant. A game show is considered an artistic work and the producers have complete latitude in this area under the First Amendment. If you go down the path of discrimination on the basis of this, that or the other, there are serious First Amendment issues involved. Just as Steven Spielberg has complete and total freedom and latitude to cast or not cast anyone he want to in his motion pictures, Stan has complete and total freedom and latitude with regard to contestant selection.
Not if the discrimination is based solely on race.
It was a very tense time at CBS, Freemantle and especially on 33. That whole week before Curling’s decision people were worried and preoccupied and there were numerous screw-ups, mishaps, stop tapes, including Barker flat out forgetting how to play a game.
I don't doubt this, and it would account for Barker's fluff while playing Dice Game. Still, there are many, many pieces missing from this puzzle. Fremantle had a long history of defending Barker and settling with aggrieved parties and was named as a co-defendant in the suit. So why should they buckle when Deborah Curling sued?
I suspect, and this is just my opinion based on the facts as I know them, that Freemantle was probably happy to finally get rid of Barker. All the lawsuits, the bad press, the millions spent on lawyers and payoffs, twenty years of the TPIR library unusable (and all that potential profit) because of Barker's death grip over it. The show's ratings had declined etc, etc, etc. This suit is also potentially bigger and badder than anything ever seen before.
I'm sorry but I have to say it: Deborah Curling was not a major player on the show. She was not in the cast, she was not a producer or director.
No she wasn't. But oh wow, she was the whistle blower!
