All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 393 > Supreme Court rules porn workers EMPLOYEES
AuthorPost
jasonjason
Deactivated User

12 Posts
8/09
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 8:43PM
In December 2008, the California State Supreme Court rukes that Brooke Ashley was an employee when she contracted the HIV virus. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. In March of 2009, the Supremem Court DENIED the petion for reversal.(rpbert Dupree, Petitioner V. Workers Comp Appeals Board, etc.(80-815)...Performer contracted HIV due to employer violation of standard workplace safety practices.
How come AVN, XBIZ,Adultfyi, or any other industry news sites NEVER reported this? One would think that a supremem court decision like this would certainly rise to the level of something that should be reported.
Get your workers comp insurnace innorder folks. Performers are going to be notified that they can now sue you for std's caught on set.
morbidthoughts All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
3627 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 8:52PM
Because a denial of certiorari is not a ruling or a comment on the case.
jasonjason
Deactivated User

12 Posts
8/09
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 8:58PM
PORNLAW,
Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
qz3fwd
Member

141 Posts
1/06
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 10:31PM
Maybe they didnt have time to report it.
I wonder if studios/directors/producers can insure themselves against this kind of lability.
Can you imagine an acturial figuring out premiums depending on the types of scenes shot?
BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 11:05PM
 
jasonjason
Deactivated User

12 Posts
8/09
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 11:31PM
That would be ..Robert Deupree,petitioner,VS. The Workers Compensationn Appeals Board of the State of California,Uninsured Employer Benefits Trust Fund, and Mon Doe, 43(aka brooke ashley).
Bigbob, did you look at the link on the other thread yet?
Didnt I pput that in the first post?
jasonjason
Deactivated User

12 Posts
8/09
Posted - Dec 1 2009 : 11:45PM
BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:10AM
^ NO, you didn't supply a link. AND, your information wasn't sufficient for me to find it via Google and search functions.
Clickable link:
Robert Deupree, Petitioner <brv. <brCalifornia Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, et al.
As the link now shows, it was the "Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District" -- not the "California State Supreme Court."
It makes a difference when people are searching with the wrong terms.
If you want to discuss complicated issues, you really need to provide a link right up front.
BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:11AM
Redish All-Star Supporter
Poetic Moderator

Long and Cursive road to the Ivory Pagoda in the province of Loraine
4076 Posts
12/03
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:16AM
It just gets in the way of his agenda Bob.
morbidthoughts All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
3627 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:40AM
That's weird. The U.S. Supreme Court usually only accepts writs from federal circuit courts and state supreme courts.
Wonder why the lawyer applied for a writ directly from a California lower court.
morbidthoughts All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
3627 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:42AM
Oh wait. I guess the California Supreme Court also denied a hearing.
Cuddly Wombat
Senior Member

Just another bare bum in the shiower
1739 Posts
12/04
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 7:38AM
That case has been discussed indirectly in recent years - I think it has always been considered arguable that adult performers are employees rather than independent contractors. Just a matter of time before the higher courts or over-officious government agencies put it beyond doubt.
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 12:01PM
Either way, it is virtually a mute point. The type of porn people enjoy now is the kind where bodily fluids are exchanged (mostly from dick to face or from dick to mouth) which is a direct violation of CAL-OSHA standards, yet it has been virtually ignored by prosecutors.
With such a risk I highly doubt, whether employees or ic's, that major studios are going to change the way they do business or start offering health, life or mental health insurance to the models.
pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05
Posted - Dec 2 2009 : 10:27PM
Old news... I have been talking about this case for a couple of years....
Both AVN and XBiz have reported it.
There's no question that in California performers are employees and would be considered so in almost every state for work comp purposes.
Michael
www.AdultBizLaw.com
www.2257Safe.com



Jump To: