The judge scheduled to hear a status conference Tuesday in a lawsuit by a former “American Idol” participant who is suing the production companies behind the show removed himself from the case because he is a parent of a full-time employee of the Walt Disney Co., which includes ABC among its divisions.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger had his clerk issue a minute order Monday ahead of Tuesday’s hearing on plaintiff Normandy Vamos’ case revealing his offspring’s position with Disney and asking that the lawsuit be transferred to another judge, citing a section of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding instances where judges believe they may not be impartial.
“Judge Highberger enjoys various discounts on account of such relationship,” the minute order states. “For this reason Judge Highberger recuses himself from this case.”
The case was reassigned for now to Judge David Cunningham III.
Vamos alleges in her proposed class-action complaint filed Feb. 3 that she and other contestants had to work 15-hour days with little to no breaks. She is suing ABC, American Idol Productions Inc., Fremantlemedia North America Inc., Industrial Media Inc. and 19 Entertainment.
The suit alleges Vamos and the other proposed class members were purposely misclassified in their work status so as to deny them work protections and avoid paying them proper minimum wage, meal and rest break reimbursements and overtime, all of which are due those workers deemed employees.
Vamos alleges she and other proposed class members were required to sign contracts stating they agreed that the performances of their songs and any acting or other presentation would not be deemed employment. In another document they were told to sign, the companies maintained that Vamos and the others were told they were not being considered for an employment position, the suit states.
Yet, the companies “exercised substantial control over the manner, means, and timing of the work performed for … `American Idol’ airing on ABC,” the suit states.
“Despite the attempt to usurp applicable California Labor law, the attempt here of calling a rose anything other than a rose, does not change the nature or characteristics of it being a rose, just as the attempt to exempt themselves from employment protections does not actually do so,” the suit states.