Thomas Gibson’s Claim Against Manager Rejected By State Labor Commission

Thomas Gibson Criminal Minds

In another setback for former Criminal Minds star Thomas Gibson, who was fired from the show last year for allegedly kicking a writer, the California Labor Commission has rejected his claim that he should not have to pay his former manager $437,950 in commissions because the former manager allegedly acted illegally as his agent in procuring his employment on the show.

Gibson fired Craig Dorfman as his manager in June 2014 after Dorfman allegedly refused to cut his commission from 10% to 7.5%. Two months later, Dorfman filed suit against the actor in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming Gibson hadn’t paid him the commission he was owed on the $4.8 million the actor earned from the 10th season of the hit CBS procedural. Two days later, Gibson filed a complaint with the labor commissioner claiming their deal should be nullified because Dorfman had acted illegally as an unlicensed agent in procuring the job for him in the first place.

Dorfman had indeed once been Gibson’s agent, pitching him for the co-starring role on the series Dharma & Greg back in 1997 and negotiating his agreement and closing the deal. But when that show ended in 2002, Dorfman relinquished his talent agent’s license and became his manager. Pursuant to an oral agreement, he would be paid a 10% commission on future earnings.

During a testy hearing before California Labor Commission attorney Barton Jacka, Gibson had claimed Dorfman “took credit” for landing him the role on Criminal Minds, but in his ruling Thursday, Jacka wrote that there was little else to support Gibson’s claim that he’d acted as his agent in procuring the role.

“Accordingly,” Jacka wrote, “we find no basis to nullify the agreement either in its totality or with respect to commissions, if any, owed to (Dorfman) by Mr. Gibson from his work on Criminal Minds. This determination does not contain within its scope any finding about whether Mr. Gibson has other defenses to (Dorfman’s) claims in the Los Angeles lawsuit about the terms of the agreement.”

This article was printed from