Muy caliente!

You gots some 'splainin' to do, Nickolodeon!
She's gorgeous!
She is 14.
"Oh yeah, I signed that contract, alright, including the part that says I read it and agree with everything in it, but I didn't really mean it, so now I want a million dollars."

Cry me a fucking river.
Dude, she is a child. Not hot.

I expect Dan Savage to submit a slog post asking why people allow their children to read Steven Humphrey.
The point being @4, that if, as is being alleged, she was THREATENED with termination BEFORE being given a chance to fully read the contract, or get it into the hands of a lawyer who could properly interpret it, then Nickelodeon would be guilty of intimidation and coercion.

But yeah, major multinational corporations ALWAYS play fair, right? They would NEVER stoop to threatening to fire a 14 year-old girl, just for the sake of a few million dollars in additional profit, now would they?
That part about getting someone else to voice Dora if she didn't sign that contract, well since if she had renegotiated it would have likely cost Nickelodeon more money, they probably meant that part. So she wouldn't have even got the relative pittance she did get, just typin'.
So Comte, how exactly was she "coerced?" Did someone hold a gun to her head? No, they told her "sign or we'll find someone else." Sorry, but that's fair game.
Caitlin was born in 1996 and is only 14.

That is neither grown up nor hot.

@4: If it was signed under duress, she has a case.
@8- It's duress if she hasn't had a chance to read the damn thing yet. A contract isn't a contract if the signer isn't given the opportunity to read and understand it.
The point @6 is that she WASN'T HIRED when she was threatened. And if you'd read the article (you know, click on the link) you'd see Nickelodeon didn't threaten her; her own agent did.

"Bercy, who is not named as a defendant in the suit, gave the Sanchez family 22 minutes to review the contract, threatening that if they didn't sign Nickelodeon would "pass on Caitlin for the part of Dora," the suit claims.

When Caitlin's parents later complained about the pay, Bercy threatened them, saying, Nickelodeon "will fire her if she pushes too much," the suit charges."

Of course her parents aren't going after the agent (pockets not deep enough?) but instead the major multinational corporation. But yeah, the little guy ALWAYS plays fair and never realizes that they made a huge mistake not asking for more money up-front, now they want more.

I did read the article and it clearly states: "The suit charges Caitlin and her parents where pressured by Nickelodeon AND her own agent - Jason Bercy of the Cunningham Escott Slevin Doherty Talent Agency - into signing a 14-page contract without the aid of a lawyer." (my emphasis).

As someone who's worked in this industry for more than two decades, I can say without hesitation that this certainly wouldn't be the first instance of a producer putting undo pressure on a performer's agent to get them to sign something NOT in the performer's own best interests.
I guess they're cycling them out when they're voices change? Seems like the show's been on forever—I remember a prostitute by my place carrying a DtE backpack 5 or 6 years ago.

My sole source of comfort here is that the character is at least being voiced by a kid. I once saw some weird behind the scenes clip of adults doing the voicework for Rugrats, and realized it was once of the creepiest things I'd ever scene. Babytalk—not even OK for money.

As for the case: that girl's parents fucked up.
Are you saying music, film, and TV producers might be trying to exploit a child?

Isn't that their religious advisors' job?
...isn't "sign this or we won't hire you" pretty much implicit in all employment contracts? That seems like the kind of duress you're sort of *allowed* to put people under. I mean, savvier people know they can bargain, but I don't see what's improper about telling someone they can take it or leave it. You can call their bluff or not. If we're talking about rushing her, that seems a little sketchier.
@16: "Sign this in the next 22 minutes or we won't hire you" is not exactly standard.

Add to that: "And don't even THINK we're going to give you time to run this by a lawyer-who-might-sniff-out-our-underhandedness."

Because, you know, parents of 12 year-old kids are ALWAYS so much better qualified to interpret pages and pages of single-spaced fine-print legalese than some dumb lawyer...

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.