Search form

Broadway’s ‘Hamilton’ Casting Call Ad Runs Afoul of Discrimination Laws

By Linda R. Carlozzi and Christopher M. Repole
  • April 1, 2016

Recent publicity surrounding a casting call for the Broadway musical “Hamilton” should remind employers of the danger of using discriminatory criteria in job ads.

The production of “Hamilton” has generated widespread attention and praise, at least in part because of its diverse cast. When the show’s producers issued a casting call seeking “non-white men and women” to audition, the ad drew criticism from the union representing theater actors, among others. Actors’ Equity argued the casting call was regulated by the union’s rules, and that Hamilton’s producers violated those rules. The producers have agreed to amend the ad language to indicate that people of all races and ethnicities are invited to audition, while stating that the show remains committed to hiring a diverse cast.

While the controversy over the Hamilton ad may raise issues specific to employers in the arts, employers in all industries should take note. Federal law prohibits discrimination in job ads on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. State and local laws may prohibit additional types of job ad discrimination.

Advertising diversity as a goal is permissible, but exclusionary rules such as those used by Hamilton’s producers are not. The lesson from this episode is clear: no matter the industry, employers should avoid using such criteria in describing desired job candidates.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices