Desperate Housewives Contract Ends, Wrongful Termination is Alleged
If you are a fan of Desperate Housewives, you might remember when during the show’s fifth season, Edie Williams, played by actress Nicollette Sheridan, is electrocuted to death following a car accident. Sheridan filed a wrongful termination suit against Touchstone Television Pictures (“Touchstone”), Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry (“Cherry”), and several other parties (who have since been dismissed), proposing that her on-screen death and Touchstone’s failure to renew her fixed-term employment contract were equivalent to a wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California law. When Sheridan was first hired she and Touchstone executed an agreement which paid Sheridan a reported $175,000 per episode to start and gave Touchstone the exclusive option to renew the contract on an annual basis for six seasons. Touchstone chose to renew the contract for Seasons 2 through 5, but let Sheridan know during Season 5 that they would not be renewing for Season 6. In Sheridan’s lawsuit she believed that Touchstone’s decision was the result of a complaint she made against Cherry for allegedly intentionally hitting her during the filming of the show. She also filed a separate claim of battery, where the courts found in favor of Touchstone and Cherry.
At the end of the trial (during which Sheridan, in response to questioning about why she sometimes stated she was “slapped” by Cherry and at other times claimed she was “violently hit,” retorted, “I don’t know why they’re different! You are such a stickler for details!”), the jury deadlocked on the wrongful termination cause of action and a mistrial was declared. The court denied a motion for a directed verdict brought by Touchstone, which argued that Sheridan’s employment had not been terminated but, rather, that Touchstone had simply elected not to exercise its option to renew her contract. In Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court, the court of appeal issued a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to grant Touchstone’s motion, holding that the company’s decision not to renew the contract was not a termination, and that Sheridan could not maintain a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy because “a decision not to renew a contract set to expire is not actionable in tort.” In other words, there is no cause of action for “tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”
The writ may not end the matter, however, as the court’s order included a directive permitting Sheridan to amend her complaint to allege a claim under California Labor Code § 6310. Such a claim, assuming it were ultimately supported by the facts of the case, would be maintained on the basis that Touchstone retaliated against Sheridan for her complaints about the “unsafe working conditions” posed by Cherry’s alleged conduct. Based on documents filed by Sheridan in recent days, it appears she intends to pursue a Section 6310 claim.
Labor law is complex; if you have any questions regarding your employment it is recommended that you contact a California labor law attorney who can help you understand your rights and in many cases will review your situation without charge.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Photographee.eu