Economist and writer and humorist and actor Ben Stein has filed suit against Kyocera Corp and advertising agency Seiter & Miller alleging that an agreement for him to appear in TV commercials was illegally breached because of his personal and political beliefs about global warming. Stein’s memorable jacket-and-tie deadpan persona has figured in numerous TV commercials and appearances. Not to mention his iconic turn in the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. According to Stein’s suit, Grace Jao of Seiter & Miller in December 2010 contacted his agent Marcia Hurwitz of Innovative Artists about appearing in commercials for Kyocera printer products and about speaking at a company function. Over the course of about five weeks, the suit claims, the parties reached an agreement on all significant deal points including payment of Stein’s fee of $300,000 for shooting the commercials and for the speaking engagement. The circumstances led Hurwitz to believe the deal was done, the suit says, and Stein planned accordingly.
Early in February 2011 Jao contacted Hurwitz, the suit says, to inform the agent that questions had been raised over Stein’s beliefs about global warming and the environment and whether they were “sufficiently conventional and politically correct for Kyocera,” according to language in the suit. Hurwitz told Jao that as far as she was concerned the deal was done, the suit said, and Stein’s political and scientific views were not part of his contract for extolling the company’s printers. Stein told Hurwitz to inform the defendants that he was extremely concerned with environmental issues but he was no means certain that global warming was manmade. He also told her to inform the defendants that it was a matter of his religious beliefs that God and not man controlled the weather.
On February 16, 2011, Livingston Miller, president of the ad agency, informed Hurwitz via email that the agency had decided to “withdraw its offer” even though negotiations had resulted in an acceptance of the offer and other stipulations. The reason? According to the suit, because of “Ben’s official positions on various policy issues that appear on the web of which we have only lately become aware.” Kyocera and the agency Seiter & Miller then hired a Ben Stein lookalike, the suit alleges, and dressed him with a tie, sport jacket and glasses and brazenly misappropriated Stein’s public persona for commercials — thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Stein.
In addition to breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing, Stein’s suit charges Kyocera, Seiter & Miller and associated individuals of illegal religious discrimination and with wrongful discharge for political expression, which are illegal under California law. Stein seeks the sum of $300,000 for work he agreed to do, attorney fees and court costs and punitive damages.
Stein is an utter nutjob.
Why is he a nutjob? Because he believes things that you don’t? Perhaps you’re the nutjob, ever think of that?
He can believe whatever he wants. Saying his beliefs trump the data of the majority of climate scientists is the sign that he could, indeed, be a nutjob.
I am willing, however, to consider the idea that he sees espousing such views as a way of keeping open any future employment opportunities on Fox News.
To say that simply because someone holds an unorthodox view they are mentally ill (your word “a nutjob”) – no matter how many scientists they are disputing – is both insulting and fallacious. How can it be right to discriminate and ridicule someone because of their opinions? For shame, sir.
What if i said the earth is most definitely flat ? No, still not a nutjob ? Same thing ..
He’s also a nutjob because he thinks that he had a contract, even though he didn’t have a contract, and because he’s scuttled his own career with his AGM denial. There’s not an ad agency in the world that’ll touch him after this. Wonder if the $300K is worth it?
I think that this narrow-mindedness, calling people “nutjobs” that don’t hold your personal views, is one of the reasons many of you are not working. You see the world one way, and try to force that view on others, and many don’t share that view.
Ben Stein is free to think and feel however he wants. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his ability to act.
Let’s day he thinks men are fundamentally superior to women. Same result , he is intitled to his personal views, etcetera ?
Why is he a utter “nutjob”? Please explain.
Co-signed.
Go, Ben, Go
Yes, Go AWAY! Why doesn’t Stein take his own uber-conservative medicine? Let the market decide. If people don’t want to do business with Kyoscera then they will bend to the will of the market for profit’s sake. Stein can’t claim he was deprived of money he never got the chance to earn. since filing a lawsuit is what leeches looking to take other people’s money do, doesn’t that make Stein one of those leeches now?
Stein is UBER Conservative?!?!? Definitely left of center when it comes to economic policies
See you all next week on “Win Ben Stein’s Summary Judgement!”
Although I do not share Stein’s views – and would concede he is, indeed, a nut-job – those views were not a secret and his reputation for having them is widely known. It is not illegal to have an unpopular opinion or to express it. They should have done their homework before signing a contract with him.
Or a popular opinion…Global warming is nothing more than a money grab by phonies like Al Gore. Nothing we do will prevent the earth from warming or cooling or exploding. We can’t make hurricanes and we cant prevent them. It’s all a crock. If it makes you feel better to call nonbelivers nut jobs, then go ahead. The truth will never change. I want cleaner air and cleaner water and cleaner everything. Free enterprise and capitalism will continue to make that happen.
Free enterprise will look for the cheapest way to deliver a product, and it certainly is cheaper to dump chemicals into a river or pump chemicals into the air. Need more proof of that? Visit China, which is exploiting their environment for the sake of economic growth, but is already seeing the costs of those policies reflected in higher mortality rates and will have to deal with decades of cleanup costs in the future. Government regulations have allowed us to preserve, to some degree, our environment. But if you want to go live in an unregulated hellhole, move to the suburbs of Beijing, and good luck breathing.
Nobody said it was illegal. But, in most states (thought I guess not in CA?) it is actually totally legal to fire someone for political beliefs.
The point is, they didn’t sign the contract.
He’s claiming that having “reached an agreement on all significant deal points” is the same as a contractual obligation. His agent says that “as far as she was concerned the deal was done”, which makes it fairly obvious that the deal wasn’t done. Stein wants the court to declare that if the parties have finished their negotiations they are then required to execute the contract whether or not anything else occurs to change their minds.
As for the “religious discrimination” angle, that’s horseshit. The company isn’t rejecting Stein because of his religion, it’s rejecting him because he’s a notorious nutjob and and embarrassment. The fact that his religious beliefs are what make him so is his problem, not theirs. (Even ignoring the distinction between weather and climate, the belief that “God controls the weather” is stupider than creationism. It’s literally a statement that there is no such thing as weather – God just raises and lowers the temperature arbitrarily. It’s also a bizarrely idiosyncratic “religious belief” – even the most Orthodox Jews don’t believe as a matter of dogma that weather happens for no reason; Stein just made that up.)
This is one of the weirdest cry-baby lawsuits on record. Stein surpasses himself as a jackass.
Verbal contracts are binding – he doesn’t need a signed document to win. This is contract law 101. Once any offer at all is out to the recipient, it becomes a binding agreement. Once a fully realized offer, including negotiation of terms such as payment, is spoken or written to the recipient, it becomes a binding legal contract.
And whether you like or dislike someone’s belief, it is still discrimination to essentially fire them over it. This is doubly true of ‘sacred’ religious beliefs. This would be akin to firing someone over their belief in creationism. Which, btw, is illegal.
Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, his beliefs were widely known and freely available before the company approached him. They should have fully researched their decision before going through any definitive negotiations.
What the company did was irresponsible, careless and illegal. Mark my words – he will win this suit.
But they didn’t sign a contract. That is the whole point here. They “reached an agreement” (according to Stein), but there is nothing on paper.
victor, unpopular opinion? latest polls show that it is actually more agreed by the population of the US that stein’s opinion concurs with an overwhelming majority. even the huff post says so.hehe
Science isn’t subject to popular opinion. If popular opinion actually affected reality, then at one time Saddam Hussein would have indeed been behind 9/11.
Of course science (assume you mean as per peer-review) is subject to ‘popular opinion’: of a specific clique of intellectuals.
Are you unaware of the so-called Sokal Affair? Wiki it. Ditto for the Decline Effect. Etc.
Peer review is well known to be largely useless: the primary reason being that funding for performing validations are nigh on impossible to get – which puts a tank shell in the brain-pan of the pretty dream that is the scientific method.
Under what rock have you been sleeping for the last few decades?
Note to self: They DIDN’T SIGN A CONTRACT WITH HIM. If they had signed one the situation would be entirely different. All there is here is an alleged oral “agreement” that was never signed — no written agreement and arguably no agreement of any kind.
Get your facts straight.
Ben Stein is so smart and so dumb.
God controls the weather? LOL
Who do you think controls the weather? The big rock that existed from all time and exploded from something else that existed from all time creating round space orbs that maintain perfect orbits is the universe and eventually all life that made it’s self better and better over time despite all scientific evidence and common sense that reveals that all things decay and grow old over time?
Kathy, your inability to grasp even the most basic details about the big bang is the kind of thing that will get you the GOP presidential nomination, if you’re not careful.
I love that you can tell when a story is linked on Drudge just by how much dumber the Deadline commenters suddenly become.
How could anyone possibly grasp a theory that changes every other week? Only an idiot could believe in a big bang creating everything when all things in existence grow weaker with time, not stronger. There has to be a God, a creator. If you don’t believe, then don’t. That’s your option. But don’t be so smug that what your science teacher tried to teach you 15 years ago holds true. Open your mind, instead of sprouting off.
Some many mistakes here. No-one controls the weather. Gravity makes space-orbs, not a big rock that has ever existed. The orbits are not perfect.
If anyone is open minded it’s a scientist. Not believing something that is unlikely to exist is not being close minded. Show me and I’ll change my mind. But you can not. It is you who is close minded by believing things that have been proven wrong over and over again. That’s called cognitive dissonance. Look it up on Wikipedia.
Exactly. These dumb scientists need to stop their whole “silly theories, attempting to explain things with facts” thing and open their mind by accepting a book written by people thousands of years ago as fact.
Great to see that you have literally *no* understanding of science Kathy. Keep those strawmen coming.
we can control the weather? LOL
Well man’s returning to the biosphere a bit of the building blocks of life , CO2 & H2O , sequestered in previous lush epochs certainly does not . That’s a profoundly stupid global statist anti-science , anti-freedom , anti-life man-made myth .
It would be nice if anyone knew what the hell you were trying to say. Who are you trying to impress, a studio reader?
This is why actors have a hard time in the business… when people like him pull stuff like this, then people in power do not want to get close and take a chance or even speak, because tomorrow the actor can make claims.
He has the right to say and feel what he wants without discrimination just like gays. What does his political and personal views have to do with acting? So no one who believes in God and global warming should be given acting roles?
Of course he has every right to say and believe whatever he wants. But no one is obligated to listen, or hire him. For a counterexample, ask the Dixie Chicks about the repercussions of expressing one’s political beliefs.
And if the people who do the hiring decide not to hire anyone who believes in God or doesn’t accept climate science (or evolutionary biology, as Stein doesn’t), then that’s their choice. He doesn’t have an inalienable right to a particular acting gig.
“People like him pull stuff like this?” They made him an offer, he accepted it, and then they pulled out for reasons that are not valid under contract law. Of course he should sue to protect his rights.
“when people like him pull stuff like this”???
What about when ad agencies pull stuff like canning your ass for not being “sufficiently conventional and politically correct”?
Sufficiently conventional and politically correct.
And so it has come to this…
Jesus.
What?? That makes no sense at all.
So if a Kosher deli got halfway through negotiations with Mel Gibson for a commercial and then researched him, they couldn’t cancel the deal? If the maker of Xanax got part way through a deal with Tom Cruise, they couldn’t back out?
Advertising is all about the brand, and advertisers are always careful about who they associate with. Ask Gilbert Gottfried. I think that even with a signed deal, these guys could back out. The fact that they never signed in the first place makes this a nuisance suit at best. I hope for Ben’s sake he gets a decent settlement, because I don’t see any more ad money coming his way any time soon.
No, BG, they could not back out. There was an offer and acceptance and that makes for a contract. The Gottfried offer may not have been the same. Maybe his contract allowed them to fire him. Maybe there was no renewal of the contract. And they did not switch to a Gottfriend lookalike – Gottfried also has a distinctive voice and persona.
There are always places where you will be considered a ‘nut’ if you do not walk lockstep – North Korea, Cuba, Nazi Germany. Not here.
offer and acceptance and poof, contract? really? If that were the case there would be far less litigation and case law defining all three of those seemingly simple terms. So Shira, maybe you need to re-take Contracts 101, or Contracts for Dummies, or wherever you came up with that simple answer to this particular set of facts. And we are clearly don’t have all the facts here.
Did you read the article? It wasn’t “halfway through negotiations” or “part way through a deal,” they had a deal.
A contract is a contract whether it’s written and signed or not, unless it’s required to be in writing under the statute of frauds (such as real estate contracts).
What if this situation were reversed, someone canceled a contract because the speaker did believe in global warming? Everyone would be screaming bloody murder.
Not sticking up for Stein’s views, but think your comparisons are a bit off. Stein didn’t say, for instance, that copiers cause cancer. It would be more like Tag Heuer firing Tom Cruise from it’s watch ads after they found out he was a Scientologist.
That said….Stein doesn’t have a case.
Had they backed out of the deal and made commercials with another well known actor instead of finding some schmuck to imitate Ben Stein, I think your statement would have merit. However, they not only backed out on the deal, but they also attempted to copy Ben’s persona. Plus, their reasons for backing out are against the law. It seems rather cut and dried. I agree with the others that they should have done their homework before making the offer.
Guys – a deal is not a deal until it’s signed. Period. How could you possibly hire anyone in the world without floating potential terms BEFORE you agree to hire someone. That’s the way it works. But it’s just an exploration until the papers are signed – and they never were.
And as far as taking his persona… scripts are written with a type in mind. If they don’t get their first choice for that type, they go after someone else with the EXACT same type. Every time. Every casting office in LA is filled with dudes who all look like brothers in line for the same role.
And the fact that he alleges they “intentionally inflicting emotional distress.” What a crock. Does he think they sat around and said, “oh hey – I just found out Ben Stein doesn’t believe in global warming, what can we do to make him upset?!” It’s just ridiculous.
Boy, you can tell 100% when Drudge links to one of these articles… wow.
You may be right about what constitutes a ‘deal’ but not what constitutes a contract. A contract means that there is an offer made and an acceptance of that offer. The article said that the two parties reached an agreement on certain deal points. Unless the article is wrong about that, coming to an agreement on those issues means that a contract has been formed. If there is material such as recorded phone calls, actual witnesses, or correspondence, even text messages or emails, that confirm an offer was made by one party and accepted by the other, you have a contract.
BTW – Drudge did not link to this article. Drudge does carry ‘Nikki Finke’ in the alphabetical listing of columnists between Suzanne Fields and First Draft, from Reuters. Not how I got here, but surely to the credit of the most successful news aggregator in the business that he does not discriminate politically in the news sources and writers listed on his site.
You are 100% wrong. Until the papers are signed, it’s just talk. The lawyers are very careful about these things. They are proposing terms, his lawyers are proposing counter terms, they can say they agree on the terms – but it’s not a contract or a deal until the papers are signed. Not in this business. It would be impossible to do business otherwise. You could never explore terms without accidentally entering a contract and opening yourself up to a lawsuit. 1000 potential deals are put together every day that never get signed, and which have no binding impact.
And yes, Drudge DID link to this. Go to his page and search for “Ben Stein” if you can’t see it through the clutter. I checked before I said it, I checked after you said I was wrong, and clearly you did not check at all. And no, he doesn’t discriminate. But when an average post suddenly comes up with 75 comments, 90% of which are clearly from people who are right wing politically and who know nothing about how the entertainment business is run, I know that he’s put a link on his page.
(BTW – part of the way they are insulated from this type of thing is that the people who are negotiating the terms of the contract aren’t even legally able to sign it, so it could NEVER be considered binding.)
Do you know how many outs a contract like that gives to the contracting party?
one trick pony trying to make someting from nothing. Get over yourself Stein, it’s amazing you had the “career” you had. no one cares!
Clearly some do or it wouldn’t be here. The correct statement is “I don’t care.” People who believe they speak for everyone show nothing but their ignorance.
one trick pony? he graduated from columbia univ as an economics major then valedictorian from yale law school. he practiced ‘poverty’ law initially and then became a trial lawyer for the federal trade commission. he became a professor and first taught at american univ and eventually at pepperdine law school. he was also a speech writer for nixon and ford. he became a hollywood consultant and then got into acting. he also was a emmy award winning game show host , an actor and still earns as a commentary writer for many, many magazines, newspapers and tv shows. what do you do?
Ben’s not taking the bait. Insult him all you want.
Stein is a thoughtful human being who happens to disagree on a political issue ranking near the bottom of public concerns. This is an absurd act of intolerance from this business. Save Stein!
“political issue ranking near the bottom of public concerns.”
You’re kidding right?
I know! Such absurd intolerance!
OR… The company doesn’t want to alienate consumers who agree with 99% of scientists re: climate change. It’s called capitalism. I would expect a “thoughtful human being” like Stein to understand how the market works. But then again, I saw Stein’s creationism documentary — he doesn’t seem to understand much.
The only surprising thing about this story is that Stein didn’t play the race card.
G-d controls the weather? Sing it: to-night Stein’s gonna party like it’s 1499…1499…
“Humorist?”
Since when?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress in a publicity rights claim? That is almost laughable.
I am shocked by these comments — or did I misread… Doesn’t the fact that they tried to shoot commercial with a lookalike indicate they were unscrupulous? I would think this town would be for the protection of his ability to earn money from the nerd recognition/persona that he’s cultivated — the one that sells copiers apparently. I think they had a budget cut to add and squirmed out of the deal etc. Good for you Ben Stein — hold them to the Law.
An offer and an acceptance – sounds like an executable contract to me. And as to the company’s concern about man-made global warming, doesn’t the recent UK email scandal regarding hyped claims and faulty science raise the possibilty that Ben – gosh -might be right? Does everyone showbiz have to walk in lockstep?
He had a great thing going with Win Ben Stein’s Money. It gave Jimmy Kimmel his start. Stein should go back to that, and lay off the kookoo politics for a while.
First, backing out a deal at the 11th hour might not be illegal, but it sure makes Kyocera look stupid. It’s not hard to do Internet research, and a major corporation like them should have thoroughly investigated Stein before they even approached him. That way if they had nitpicks about his personal views, they wouldn’t have even initiated talks. What they did is just sloppy and unprofessional.
Second, do they really think that the average American business owner knows or cares about Ben Stein’s views on global warming? It’s a copier commercial! They were obviously interested in Stein bringing his unique persona to their product, not hearing a treatise from him on environmental issues. No, this smacks more of some uptight suit in a board room getting his/her panties in a knot over a completely irrelevant issue and spoiling an otherwise great ad campaign concept.
Third, I’ve watched the Kyocera commercials and they are clearly trying to channel Ben Stein with the man they hired to replace him. Sure, he doesn’t use the same vocal intonations, but the look is spot on, and the dialogue seems like it was written for Stein and then tweaked after the fallout. The first two points were just juvenile and unprofessional, but it’s this one that makes me think he may have a case. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I’m no legal expert.
Interesting how conservatives are all for tort reform and the rights of corporations to do whatever they want until they feel “oppressed.” Then suddenly they’re whinier and more victimy than the most insufferable college feminist.
Non-sequiter fallacy. Also ad hominem fallacy. Bigotry against conservatives form the basis of your arguments. (And I used to be a rabid lib like you; I know the media brainwashing that fed mine for so many years. Don’t be so sure of yourself. You might regret your foolhardiness years from now.)
It’s amazing how some people can just be idiots.
Such an educated man. Such a buffoon. (buffoon. noun. see Victoria Jackson)
I also loved winning $1550 of Ben Stein’s Money. Love or hate his politics, THAT was a great show (at least the seasons with Jimmy Kimmel).
From what I gather its the fact that they went ahead and used his likeness and persona anyway. If you have such a problem with his views WHY would you use his likeness and persona? It would be like Nike when they backed out on Tiger Woods and then turning around and using a look alike for their commercials.
This will be settled out of court for half.
Sounds like Ben already spent the $300,000.
which is exactly why a verbal contract, especially for employment, is a binding contract.
true example straight from law school:
girl gets a verbal employment offer from company. girl moves across country, renting an apartment, amoung other costs, dependent upon the salary and job offer. When she gets there, they no longer need her. She sues. She wins.
So if two parties create a written contract and then one party chooses not to sign, they’re obliged anyway? How many of you who wrote or said yes have ever signed or had a client sign a test deal?
As soon as there is a meeting of the minds there is a contract. The signing of papers is only a convenient way to show prove that there was a meeting of the minds. But there can be any number of other ways to prove it.
He’s a gifted actor with such range! How could anyone not hire him??!!