TiK ToK pop star, Kesha, wants out of her contract with Dr. Luke (Lukasz Gottwald) and is suing to break the contract. If you read about the situation like that, it makes complete sense that a judge would deny her request. After all, the whole purpose of contracts is to prevent one person from walking away.
What makes this case different is that Kesha claims that Dr. Luke drugged and raped her years ago. Isn’t a claim of rape enough to let the victim out of the contract?
I’m not a lawyer, but there are lessons in this for sexual harassment or other forms of illegal discrimination claims within your business. Most sexual harassment claims don’t rise to felony status, like Kesha’s claim of rape does. Companies don’t have to obtain a conviction in order to terminate or punish an employee, but they do need to investigate.
The problem in the Kesha case is that she’s just made a claim. He hasn’t been tried and convicted. I presume that the judge is correct not to grant her request based on a claim only. (Again, as a non-lawyer, I’ll just assume that the law was applied correctly here.)
To keep reading, click here: Lessons from Kesha’s Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
The biggest argument I’m seeing with the judge’s ruling seems to be that there are quite a few other artists who have got out of contracts for much less egregious reasons. Also, the things she said he did are rampant in this industry. Other artists know this, which is probably why you’re seeing so much support coming from them.
I hope to see some kind of successful appeal. She didn’t call the cops because all she wants is to get away from someone who abused her. Even if she has to pay a hefty fine to get out of it, there are plenty of people who would help her do it.
To the best of my knowledge (which is mainly from reading my mother-in-law’s stash of People Magazines), the entire Entertainment industry is full of sleazy, slimy people. So her claims wouldn’t surprise me if they were true.
Whether or not Kesha could bring a successful sexual harassment lawsuit under Title VII probably depends on whether or not she would be considered an “employee,” as opposed to an independent contractor.
True. I doubr she’s an employee in any sense of the word, but we’re going for principles here.
Here’s the problem I have with such news stories.
Yes, it is most likely very true that what she is claiming has happened to many people; but, at the same time it does come across as an excuse to get out of her contract.
If it really was a bad as she claims why didn’t she leave earlier? But, on the other hand, she wasn’t famous and had no power before. And, yet, it still looks like just an excuse to void the contract.
So, which is the real truth? I’m afraid, even with a court judgment, we will never know the real truth.
Squid lips! Why am I so cynical?