As the old saying goes, no business is like show business. On the one hand, show business is the business of speech. But what acts of an entertainment producer are legitimately free of expression and what acts are simply discrimination? That is not always clear. Just look at the ongoing case of Alf Clausen, the 79-year-old man who was fired as The Simpsons composer after 27 years of work celebrated in the animated classic. As his lawsuit is addressed to a major audience next week, Clausen seeks to undermine Fox’s position that this dispute is related to a major First Amendment issue.
Clausen is suing Disney and its Fox divisions with the claim that his termination was due to age and disability discrimination. The musician says he has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and opposes how The Simpsons the producers left it in favor of Hans Zimmer’s company.
In April, in an attempt to defeat the suit, Fox gave a different side of the story. According to the defendant’s court documents, Clausen was fired after producers expressed concern about his work in connection with a particular hip-hop episode of the animated show. Simpsons producer James L. Brooks wondered if Clausen was the right person to prepare rap music, while others were allegedly disturbed by the discovery that Clausen had delegated some of the work of composing music to The Simpsons others, including her son Scott Clausen. Overall, according to the statements of other major producers on the show, the feeling was that the music could be improved by replacing Clausen.
“The defendants have presented evidence that the decision not to use Clausen as a composer in future episodes of The Simpsons had speech-related motivations, “wrote a lawyer for the The Simpsons accused
“Lies and deceptions,” responds Clausen’s newly filed opposition. (Read in full here.)
“The evidence from Mr. Clausen … shows that, at least since 2008, Fox knew that he regularly delegated the composition of music to members of his team,” the report said. “This fact is confirmed not only through Fox’s own reference sheets, but also from emails between Matt Selman, Al Jean, Carol Farhat and even James Brooks, in which discussions about Scott Clausen and others who compose clues they are undeniable. “
Plaintiff’s attorneys then add: “The notion that Mr. Clausen failed to capture the showrunners’ vision is equally ridiculous … Mr. Clausen won two Emmy Awards, five Annie Awards and became the most nominated songwriter. in Emmy history, racking up a record 23 Emmy Award Nominations for their work on The Simpsons. The simple fact that Al Jean and Matt Selman routinely skipped recording sessions suggests how much faith and confidence they had in Mr. Clausen deliver your vision. “
As for whether Clausen is capable of hip-hop, the composer says Brooks is only revealing “discriminatory and ageist beliefs that Clausen was only good with old styles of music, [than] Up-to-date genres, such as rap, electronics, etc., despite the evidence and work history proving otherwise. “
At a hearing on August 5 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, the issue for the judge will not necessarily be whether The Simpsons Producers were justified in replacing Clausen, who also says he has worked within budget parameters. Instead, the question may be: Was it the shot over the music? Because if it is about music, Fox has a very good chance of prevailing in his anti-SLAPP movement. Clausen implies that his dismissal was not about music.
California’s SLAPP statute is intended to quickly dispense frivolous lawsuits that interfere with someone’s freedom of expression. Under the first tip of the SLAPP analysis, a judge examines whether a legal action arises from an act promoting the defendant’s First Amendment activity in relation to a public problem. That analysis becomes somewhat complicated with respect to entertainment and media companies. Courts do not want to overlook discrimination, but on the other hand, judges are aware that these entities produce speech as a regular function. That sometimes means that a controversial decision by an entertainment or media defendant may be related to an important topic of speech. It is not surprising that the topic has been the subject of very recent appeals opinions (such as this or that).
So was Clausen’s dismissal motivated by a desire to improve music in The Simpsons – as Fox maintains – or is that reasoning just a pretext? And how does a judge assess the evidence? Here, Clausen’s attorneys, Thomas Girardi and Ebby Bakhtiar, try to convince the judge that Fox’s prior knowledge of the work delegation, among other things now in submission, adds to an inference that Fox is being misleading regarding to the reasoning behind the decision to end the lifelong composer of the show.
If Clausen does not prevail on this point, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern will resort to an analysis of the merit of Clausen’s claims. Under the second point of the SLAPP statute, a plaintiff must establish a probability of prevailing before proceeding in the case. Clausen’s lawyers translate this as the lawsuit only needs to show “minimal merit” (which they believe they have met), though Fox is likely to argue that the screen is higher, particularly given the legitimate justification they have offered for the termination of Clausen.
This article originally appeared on THR.com.
