Bit Parts

Breach-of-Contract Claim Can Continue Over Refusal to Exercise Option to Retain Anti-Vaccination Actress

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a TV series producer's motion to dismiss a breach-of-contract claim by an actress for whom it refused to exercise an option for her to appear in a second season of Run the World after she asked for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Bordeaux v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., 2:22-cv-04244. World Productions Inc. (WPI) had engaged actress Andrea Bordeaux for Run the World's initial season. The one-year agreement gave WPI an option to re-hire Bordeaux for up to six additional seasons. Soon after WPI exercised the option for the show's second season, New York City instituted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for workers in the city. Bordeaux filed suit after series co-producer Lionsgate turned down her request for a religious exemption. Central District Judge Steven V. Wilson first dismissed Bordeaux's religious discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by finding her "beliefs only focus [on] maintaining the sanctity of her body and not harming others," rather than on a formal religious structure. But District Judge Wilson allowed her federal claim to proceed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by noting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "defines a religious practice to 'include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.' C.F.R. §1605.1" Then, in allowing Bordeaux's breach-of-contract claim against WPI to continue (Lionsgate wasn't a signatory to the first season agreement with Bordeaux) Judge Wilson observed: "Here, the distinction between a contract renewal and a contract extension is important. … [A] contract renewal creates a new contract, whose terms may vary compared to the initial contract, while a contract extension carries forward the terms of a previous contract. … If the option was a contract renewal, then Defendants were free to renegotiate and introduce a new term to the contract — i.e., compliance with the vaccination policy. By contrast, if the option was a contract extension, then the terms of the Season 1 agreement, which omitted compliance with the vaccination policy, would control." The district court concluded, "Without additional evidence, such as custom or practice, the Court is unable to discern at this stage whether the option is a renewal or extension."