New house rules: landmark ruling could trigger other workers’ compensation claims from reality TV stars
A landmark ruling that ordered the Seven Network pay a reality TV star compensation could have far-reaching implications for other productions and workplaces, as Joellen Riley Munton reveals in this crossposting from The Conversation.
This week, the Seven Network was found liable to pay a workers’ compensation claim brought by Nicole Prince, one of the contestants on its renovation reality television show, House Rules.
Prince suffered a major depressive episode, and symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder after she and her partner were cast as the “mean girls” in the 2017 season of the series.
She provided convincing evidence program directors manipulated series content to ensure the pair appeared to be hypercritical of other contestants, drawing not only their hostility, but also an avalanche of hateful social media comment. (Channel Seven refused to remove the offensive and often violent posts.)
The case before the New South Wales Compensation Commission concerned a statutory claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) for medical expenses.
However it raises the prospect of potential common law claims by other reality TV “stars” who have been treated badly. In the wake of the ruling, fellow reality TV contestants including Tracey Jewel from Married at First Sight have floated the possibility of legal action.
On the books
Prince’s success depended upon a finding she was an employee according to the common law test that defines employment. The difference between an employee and independent contractor is based on multiple factors and has developed with court decisions over time. To make a determination, courts look at each case and the overall “vibe” of the relationship between the parties.
Employees are also owed duties of care under tort law (which determines civil liability) and contract law (which governs agreements).
An employer who exposes an employee to unnecessary risk of foreseeable harm can also be held liable at common law for damages that can extend to lost earnings. In this case, Prince gave evidence she had been unable to find employment following her disastrous experience on the show.
The prospect for these kinds of claims has long been recognised in the United States, where claims by contestants (or their surviving family members) have been brought against television production companies, although rarely successfully.
In 2017, the US reality dating show Bachelor in Paradise was suspended for nine days pending allegations of sexual misconduct (later dismissed). Two contestants on the show had engaged in sexual activity under the influence of alcohol.
The scandal raised the question of when reality TV producers should intervene to protect contestants.
The sticking point in the US cases has been the ability of networks to disclaim employer status in their written contracts with contestants. In Australia, however, employment status cannot be avoided by contractual disclaimers if the court decides the relationship bears the hallmarks of employment, established in a number of High Court cases.
House Rules
The Workers Compensation Commission found Prince was engaged for remuneration ($500 a week plus $500 in allowances) to serve Seven’s business. Seven exerted control over when she worked, what she wore, and which tools she used.
As a featured personality, Prince was an integral part of their business. She was required to provide exclusive service, and give up her normal occupation, during filming.
Finally, Prince bore none of the entrepreneurial risks that would be involved were she engaged in her own business.
These factors were said to “overwhelmingly” indicate she was employed by Seven.
Once it was established she was an employee it was a straightforward matter to find her psychiatric illness was a consequence of her employment. While the Commission made no findings as to fault (statutory Workers Compensation claims are not fault-based), certain observations made in the reasons suggest Prince may well be able to demonstrate the harm she suffered was foreseeable.
The commission concluded Seven deliberately manipulated her on-screen portrayal as a nasty person, and was made aware of the torrent of abuse she was receiving as a consequence. It refused to take any steps to ameliorate the harm, no doubt because this kind of conflict and outrage is a calculated part of such shows’ audience appeal.
A legal landmark
This appears to be the first successful claim of this nature in Australia.
It’s possible claims brought by contestants who are physically harmed could be settled by the insurers.
This one, involving the infliction of psychological harm, opens a wide door to more potential claims from contestants who naively expect to be able to present themselves as their usual loveable selves on the television, and end up as social pariahs.
The amount Prince is to be compensated has not yet been determined. But in 2011, a NSW woman who suffered psychiatric illness and was unable work after she had been subjected to workplace bullying and harassment was awarded $438,000.
This case also raises some very interesting questions about whether reality TV contestants might bring other claims related to employment. Minimum wages, perhaps? Or superannuation entitlements?
Prior to the Prince decision, the Law Society of NSW published a tongue-in-cheek piece that flagged a shopping list of potential legal claims reality stars might pursue.
Those claims may be far-fetched, but the refusal of Seven’s insurer to pay Prince’s compensation claim – which set this legal precedent in motion – has opened up a proverbial can of worms for reality television producers.
Joellen Riley Munton, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
about time
User ID not verified.
Just DON’T apply to go on any reality shows if you have any mental issues – as it is obvious to blind freddy that you are going to be exposed to all sorts of tactics to make it more ‘viewable’..and that is what it is all about. So you either take the good with the bad if you persist in wanting to appear on reality TV.
User ID not verified.
The old folks used to say “You will play with the cat until it scratches”
Actors attend drama schools not just to learn about Shakespeare, Stanislavsky, and the craft of characterization. We also learned that Nothing within the craft of theatre is real, it is all makebelieve, and we must allow the audience to suspend disbelief and give them, via our craft, an appearance of truth.
So-called Reality Television is a crude manipulation of the theatrical craft, produced by and with the use of people who may have no understanding of characterization and the fictional nature of the product.
Mess around with things you do not understand, and you must face the consequences.
User ID not verified.
Everyone had a brain and therefore can develop ‘mental issues’. No one is immune to mistreatment. And the duty of care is still with the television producers. Just because, as viewers, we can see that contestants are treated badly that doesn’t make it okay.
User ID not verified.
Hope Channel Seven burns – the more people that sue the better. Destroy them. Make them suffer. Money is all they care about so hit them hard.
User ID not verified.
Why submit yourself to a reality show in the first place? For recognition and wanting to be a ‘celebrity’ for more than 15 mins if you’re lucky. So it is up to the individual to make that call and decide whether they are capable of any consequences – regardless of what any producer does.
User ID not verified.
Landmark ruling. I hope the MAFS contestants follow suit.
User ID not verified.
Channel 7 don’t give a sh*t about the people they ruin along the way to get the job done.
Where is the compensation for the staff that they have broken along the way also??? They have successfully swept all this stuff under the rug for years, hiding behind their legal teams.
It is about time they were made accountable.
User ID not verified.
The level of care and value given to loyal employees is akin to a handful of excrement smeared on a wall. Disgraceful.
User ID not verified.
The level of respect shown to loyal employees is akin to a handful for excrement smeared on a wall. Especially for a woman over 50! Disgraceful.
User ID not verified.