Entitlement theory hits Hollywood

Cluefon
    By Dan Dudis

One of the most important cases of the decade was decided over break, and most of us probably missed it. Just before Christmas, a California jury found the Spelling Company guilty of illegally terminating the contract of pregnant actress Hunter Tylo. Aaron Spelling had hired Tylo to play the role of a conniving "sexy vixen" on the popular prime-time soap opera Melrose Place. But before Tylo ever got a chance to lather up, she became pregnant. Spelling fired her, citing the "material change in appearance clause" in her contract as his grounds. Tylo sued, O.J. Simpson trial alumna Gloria Allred took the case, Heather Locklear testified, and yet another California jury delivered its increasingly infamous brand of justice. Most of us simply snickered, not realizing the dangerous precedent that this case sets.

From a legal standpoint, it should have been obvious that Tylo had no case. Her material appearance would indeed change with the pregnancy. Quite simply, Tylo had been hired because of the way she looked. I've seen Melrose Place a grand total of two times, but after the first five minutes, it immediately becomes apparent that all involved were hired not for their acting ability, but for their striking anatomical assets. Tylo, a veteran of The Bold and the Beautiful, should have known how the system works.

But Tylo had learned something from her soap experience. She might not have been beautiful in Spelling's eyes, but she was still bold. The soap had gotten in her eyes, and the tears were not far behind. Tylo cried pregnancy discrimination, and wept as she told the court that the executives at Spelling told her to have an abortion. And then there was Ms. Locklear. How come Heather hadn't been fired when she got pregnant? The jury, apparently very touched by the emotion and drama of Tylo's testimony, decided that Spelling must pay for just saying "no" to pregnant seductresses (doesn't poor Aaron get any credit for avoiding the temptation to further debase American morals?).

First, the Locklear question. Of course Heather wasn't fired. She's the star of the show. People watch Melrose in large part to see Heather and the other regulars. Tylo was just another soap actress in a town that overflows with sudsy beauties.

But this is all really beside the point. What makes this case so important is that employers are now being told that they don't have the right to hire and fire based on merit any more (merit in this case being a purely superficial quality, but, nonetheless, the quality the industry trades in). The Tylo case is symptomatic of our growing inability, as a society, to say "no." All across America, people less than qualified for certain jobs suddenly believe they have a right to those jobs. Learning-disabled law students who can't read are suing the bar association. Parents scream, "learning disability" whenever their child doesn't do well in a particular subject. It never occurs to parents that maybe their little Johnny isn't any good at science. As a result, trumped up learning disabilities have flourished. Failure or rejection is no longer considered an acceptable outcome.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Suppose Yale hires a professor. This professor, hired because of the brilliance of his or her mind, is subsequently diagnosed with Alzheimers. The good men and women of California would hold that Yale cannot fire this professor, because that would be discrimination against those with debilitating diseases of the mind. As absurd as this example is, Hunter Tylo's suit is equally ridiculous.

We, as a society, seem to have gotten away from a simple biological fact. Everyone is not capable of doing everything; we should accept this fact and move on. Some people are more attractive than others. Some people are more intelligent than others. It's time for America to just say no: no to silly "learning disabilities" and no to absurd litigation like Tylo's.

Back to Opinion...