In a timely discussion of among Hollywood’s key methods for protecting its power players, the Los Angeles Times highlights a particularly eye-opening example of a non-disclosure agreement from Greenhour Corporation, Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company, which appears to need employees to quit any rights to sue the actor or the business for all type of offenses, “including harassment, invasion of privacy and infliction of psychological distress.”
The Times obtained a copy of one of Greenhour’s NDAs from a few years back and found exactly what some legal experts concluded are extremely troubling clauses in the arrangement. LA Times author James Rufus Koren sums up exactly what the NDA asked of its signees:
Prospective workers were asked to grant confidentiality agreements that not only avoided them from disclosing private information about the star, however also a long list of “offensive/inappropriate material” they may be exposed to in the advancement of movies and other projects.What’s more, a copy of the contract reviewed by The Times appears to demand that employees quit their rights to sue DiCaprio or Greenhour over a broad range of claims, including harassment, intrusion of privacy and infliction of psychological distress–“whether or not in connection with the development” of DiCaprio-related projects.According to the file
, Greenhour forbids workers from exposing information about DiCaprio, his household members and friends and even exposing that the professional is doing service with DiCaprio or the business at all. But the most uncomfortable parts are the stipulations dealing with the “offensive/inappropriate material”that potential staff members can not discuss and the misleading idea that workers can not sue the actor or the company: It states that professionals on a task
“might get info or product of a specific, graphic, offensive, sexual and/or unsuitable nature, “and be in circumstances where” as part of the innovative procedure, conversations, jokes, banter and behavior may consist of specific referrals to sex, gender, race, sexual preference, violence and other safeguarded classifications.”Another provision in the arrangement appears to demand that workers quit their rights to take legal action against DiCaprio or related companies. The file requires contractors, however, to report to a supervisor if they feel bugged or threatened.When the LA Times asked two legal experts what they thought about the NDA, they agreed that the language
was over the top– one calling it”wildly overboard “– and seemed developed to give the “incorrect “impression that workers could not take legal action against, which they suggested would not be enforceable in courts.One unnamed”independent professional, “who spoke to the LA Times on condition of privacy, said he picked to refuse a job with Greenhour due to the fact that of the
” offending” agreement. NDAs have actually” gotten significantly overbearing” over the last few years, he added.Such NDAs have actually become relatively “basic”in the industry, Koren notes, and a number of the stipulations have been added in direct reaction to legitimate
legal concerns in the past. While “overboard “NDAs are certainly not an indication that a business or person is associated with any sketchy negotiations, they have been abused by some who are. Koren notes that likewise restrictive nondisclosure contracts were presumably utilized by Harvey Weinstein to reach settlements with accusers.