Valerie Harper sued by Lombardo and producers...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 9:58am

HOW DARE SHE GET BRAIN CANCER DURING A RUN!

This is one of the most despicable things I've read recently. Then again, it IS TMZ so it could be false. But TMZ is often scarily accurate:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/valerie-harper-lawsuit-looped-matthew-lombardo/

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 10:28am

Some people are so inconsiderate.

The nerve of her.

[Blockhead24]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 10:42am

Updated On: 4/27/14 at 10:42 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 10:43am

I'm just spittin' here, but I think LOOPED's failure on Broadway had nothing to do with Ms. Harper's performance.

Get on your broom and go home, Lombardo.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 10:46am

Lawsuits are pubic record. What TMZ did here--which is a disservice to both Valerie Harper and Matthew Lombardo--is make it sound like the lawsuit was his evil idea.

At the bottom of the sensationalist and tabloid-despicable article is this single sentence:

Worth noting, Lombardo filed his lawsuit in response to one filed by Harper, in which she claims Lombardo failed to pay the remainder of her contract despite her illness.

If it was worth noting, it was worth noting in the opeing paragraph--or the article title!

Lombardo's suit is simply a countersuit. It's no more wrong of him to countersue than it was of her to sue. She's either entitled to the sick pay under the contract or she's not. A judge will interpret the contract and contract law to determine who if anyone should pay.

This is an example of newstories that needn't be reported, because the news oulet itself is too stupid or venal or bitchy to report it correctly.

[Tom5]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 11:38am

Assuming Mr Lombardo and Associates was contractually obligated to pay Ms. Harper in the event of illness it only makes him DOUBLY despicable. 1. Refusing to pay what is owed to her. 2. Suing HER for asserting her rights. Updated On: 4/27/14 at 11:38 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 12:13pm

Why would we assume that?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 12:47pm

Countersuing is what is done. In MANY, MANY circumstances. As PalJoey states: this isn't really a story, it's technicality stuff.

Someone has misunderstood the contract.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 2:03pm

"Assuming Mr Lombardo and Associates was contractually obligated to pay Ms. Harper in the event of illness it only makes him DOUBLY despicable. 1. Refusing to pay what is owed to her. 2. Suing HER for asserting her rights."

We can assume that if you wish, but it would mean she had the foresight to know that she was going to get sick and have to leave the production due to her illness and negotiate that as a separate rider. Under the Production contract she would not have worked enough weeks to accrue any sick days (if she could at all, as if you are making more than $4,250 a week then you don't accrue paid sick days). She would have been entitled to take up to one year on an unpaid medical leave, but there is nothing in the contract stating that there is any penalty to the producers if the production closes during the course of that medical leave.

Without seeing any riders/additional terms she may have negotiated I wouldn't speak with absolute certainty, but based solely on the rules laid out in the Production contract I'm not sure that her initial lawsuit against Lombardo and the producers is going to get her anything.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 2:26pm

"Without seeing any riders/additional terms she may have negotiated I wouldn't speak with absolute certainty..."

Without seeing any riders/additional terms she may have negotiated, we know nothing at all. Harper may have leveraged a lower salary against various riders.

In the end, I think Lombardo will regret this. Regardless of the legality of the situation, or the accuracy of the sentiment, he will always be remembered as the guy who sued Rhoda for getting cancer. It would have been cheaper and smarter to pay off her contract.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 3:46pm

Some of the boys over at Data Lounge are speculating that Valerie faked her cancer diagnosis, or maybe portrayed her prognosis at worse than it was.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 3:53pm

Are you kidding??? This is getting sick. Val had her doctors on TV with her. They all said she was terminal. I'm sure she'd fake cancer to get out of a play she was nominated Tony for. Grotesque lies.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:06pm

I'm sure Lombardo regrets a great deal about this situation. Nevertheless, once Harper sued him, he pretty much had to countersue.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:15pm

That's an arguable point, Pal Joey. He certainly could have settled. I doubt very seriously Harper was commanding a huge salary, and there wasn't much time left on her contract. In the end, regardless of fairness, I think he would have been better off financially and reputation-wise to have paid her. His reputation wasn't very good before. This won't help.

And again, we don't know what her contract reads. She might very well be owed the money. We simply don't know.

He certainly can't claim he was unaware of her previous bout of cancer.

The suggestion that Harper was faking this is disgusting.

Updated On: 4/27/14 at 04:15 PM

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:22pm

I had no problem with Valerie Harper in Looped -- it was the play that sucked.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:24pm

As if there has ever been a truthful statement posted on Data Lounge.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:26pm

I doubt he gets to call the shots.

There are producers involved in the lawsuit and you are assuming Lombardo has enough votes to overrule them. There are also investors involved, to whom the producers owe a fiduciary responsibility. If the producers don't do everything in their power to protect the investment, the investors could turn around and sue the producers.

TMZ is just using Lombardo as the one they can point at and say "BAD MAN SUES RHODA FOR CANCER"--and you are all falling for TMZ's tabloid bait.

There's a contract and this is a dispute over who the interpretation of that contract. It's not about Rhoda being sued for getting cancer.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:43pm

"There's a contract and this is a dispute over who the interpretation of that contract. It's not about Rhoda being sued for getting cancer. "

This is one where it really doesn't matter what the reality is - that WILL be the appearance to Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat. Even if Harper's contract doesn't read that she is owed the remainder of her contract (and we have no idea whether it does or not), whoever has the power should have settled this to keep Harper from filing suit, for appearances if nothing else. It can't possibly have been a huge sum of money, and honestly, considering that, itwould have been the decent thing to do.

The fact that Lombardo and the producers are suing her for 1.5 million over the amount they claim they lost makes them look vindictive. No way they win here - even if they win.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:45pm

that WILL be the appearance to Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat


I doubt Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat will care.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 4:58pm

I think you have that backward. Joe and Sally love Rhoda, and they won't like that Lombardo sued her because she got sick (again, that will be their perception, right or wrong).

Lombardo has had a decent following in Florida and in Hartford, CT. Those people aren't going to like this. He's already a marginal playwright. This won't help him going forward.

I hope this gets resolved quickly, for all parties concerned.

[Tom5]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 6:04pm

There's a false assumption going on here. If you're a producer who is sued for something which has no legal basis (as is implied here) it doesn't mean you counter-sue. You simply show the contract to the judge and it is thrown out. (And counter-sue for half a million dollars?! Looped was only doing 25% of business and that was almost entirely on Ms. Harper's performance.) This is just mean by some mean people. If Stagegrade rated Mr. Lombardo's classless performance here I'm sure he'd get a F-)

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 7:32pm

"There's a false assumption going on here."

There's a LOT of assumptions going on here. As AEA AGMA SM said, we know nothing unless we know the contract - and all we're going on so far is info from TMZ, which isn't more than a step or two above Datalounge.

"And counter-sue for half a million dollars?! Looped was only doing 25% of business and that was almost entirely on Ms. Harper's performance."

There are at least two things wrong with those two sentences: according to reports, they are suing for two million, and the suit doesn't have anything at all to do with the Broadway run. It's about the tour.

I did see LOOPED on Broadway. Harper was quite amazing. Act One was actually not bad. It was based on a day when Tallulah had to rerecord, or "loop" a line for a film she had done, and all the difficulties that transpired (for all the reasons you might imagine) in doing so. Act two might as well have been an entirely different play, as it became all about Tallulah trying to convince the other main character into coming out of the closet. It made no sense at all.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 7:46pm

Let's not forget that Valerie also sued over her Valerie's Family sitcom. She's not just poor Rhoda who got cancer. She can turn up the heat when she wants to.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 4/27/14 at 8:22pm

The main problem with anyone speaking sensibly here, and actually reading the article, is there are fewer and fewer people who actually do read the whole article and can think sensibly. More people just read the headline, remember that Valerie is a treasure, and base their judgements simply on that.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/28/14 at 10:08am

"Let's not forget that Valerie also sued over her Valerie's Family sitcom. She's not just poor Rhoda who got cancer. She can turn up the heat when she wants to."

Yes, she sued for wrongful dismissal over a quarter of a century ago and won. Isn't that what courts are for? What's your point?

Now the NY Post has it. No mention of Harper's lawsuit at all.
NY Post