Fired Color Purple actress sues for religious discrimination- Page 4

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 12:59am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "In her defense, from what I understand, the film version of the book really tones down the lesbian relationship between Celie and Shug. If before auditioning for the show and accepting the role of Celie she had only say, seen the movie and listened to a few songs from the OBC, it's entirely plausible that she didn't realize Celie is queer/bi/lesbian. She certainly wouldn't be the first actor to accept a role with only that level of knowledge of the show.

Something I've been thinking a lot about recently is the fact that everyone - both liberal and conservative - are products of their upbringing and their community. There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians out there who (idiotically) think homosexuality is a sin. If the majority of a child'sfamily, friends, and acquaintances believe this, then the child will be almost inevitably led to believe it too. Although many theater people from conservative backgrounds end up becoming more liberal because of the new friends and colleagues they make as adults in the performing arts, some still manage to stay in their conservative "bubble" and are never properly challenged to think a new way.

She really should never have sued the producers over this. I'm sure her family, friends, and fellow members of her church encouraged her, and that she simply does not know enough gay peopleto have any realistic perspective on homosexuality. And although I can understand her not reading the entirety of the script to the musical when accepting the role, the fact that sheonly recentlyread it (after what, a year?), and has not only admitted this but is using it as part of her case...what a sad, pathetic person. I hope she likes singing in church because she ain't going to be singing in the professional theatre - and that's a choice she has consciously made. You can't be openly anti-gay and be a theatre professional - not outside of say, Utah and South Carolina.I just hope she doesn't actually get any money out of this idiocy."

I have never read the book. I saw the movie and it was quite obvious to me. I can only speak for the people I knew at the time but they picked up on it also. I can remember the "ewws" in the theater when I saw it and conversations around the relationship. I know a lot of people who didn't read the book until after they saw the movie.

Spielberg admitted to toning it down to a kiss but, in my opinion, it told us what we needed to know and we didn't need the more intimate details in the film. And it was more than just "a kiss". Their expressions and body language let us know what was happening. If this actress has such strong religious beliefs then she must have just chosen to ignore it or block it out when she saw the movie. But if she actually did see the movie, why did she accept the part knowing she would probably have to kiss another woman?  Just my random thoughts.

 

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 12:59am

She had already played Nettie in a concert version of the show at Cadogan Hall a couple of years ago, so she clearly knew that homosexuality is an important theme of the show. For being such a devoted Christian she seems to break the eight commandment a lot.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 9:23am

They kiss in the movie? Wow okay so this girl obviously hadn’t seen the movie either. And she’s still pursuing legal action? She would have quit anyway. What an idiot.

[Joshua Rosenthal]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 10:24am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "So...according to the article, if she had apologized for the post, she might have been able to keep the job, but she refused??? This girl is in the wrong business."

True. I don’t understand her logic at all, but like, did she even know who Celie is at all? How she kisses a woman onstage and shred a love duet with her?? This actress is so stupid and now that she’s suing she’s making it worse for herself. 

[NotTheComfyChair]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 11:46am

I won't weigh in on the religious discrimination issue. I would just post an article in The Stage who are covering the tribunal. It may provide some clarity for some of the posters in this thread.

 

The Stage Feb 3, 2021 by Georgia Snow - Full link below.

Seyi Omooba has denied that appearing in a concert production of The Color Purple meant she was aware of the lesbian storyline in the show, a tribunal has heard.

The actor, who was dropped from a production of the musical at Curve in 2019 after anti-gay comments she made on Facebook were reshared online, said that in hindsight she now appreciates the sexual themes in the play but did not understand them as such at the time.

She is suing Curve and her former agency Global Artists, who also dropped her in 2019, for £128,000.

Prior to being cast as Celie in Curve’s production, Omooba had performed the role of Nettie – Celie’s sister – in a concert version at London’s Cadogan Hall in 2017.

During virtual proceedings at the Central London Employment Tribunal, Omooba reiterated comments made yesterday (February 2) that her understanding of Celie’s character was drawn from reading the novel – which the musical is based on – while at school, and from performing as Nettie in the concert version.

She said that from these experiences, she had concluded that Celie "is a complicated woman, who has a distorted view because of rape and finds solace in a woman who shows her she can be loved", but maintained that she did not believe this love was sexual.

Omooba was questioned by Christopher Milsom QC, representing Global Artists, who asked how she could have performed as part of a production in which the character of Celie kisses another female character on stage, and not recognise the lesbian theme of the story.

Omooba initially replied that she was not on stage at the time of the kiss, but later said she was "at the side but wasn’t watching the whole time" and did not remember a kiss. This was after Milsom said he had spoken to several members of the concert’s creative team who claimed that Omooba did not leave the stage during the performance.

Earlier in the day during questioning by Curve’s representative Tom Coghlin QC, she said that she now accepts that there is a romantic relationship between the two female characters but this was not the case previously.

"In rereading it now it was evident that there was some lesbian attraction there, and I didn’t reread the script when taking the role," she said.

Omooba has already claimed that she did not read the script before being cast in Curve’s production, and only did so recently, which meant that she interpreted the character in a different way.

"Whether or not you find a different way of rationalising it, it is obvious, if you know this script from rehearsals, if you know the book, it is obvious that there is a real likelihood that this would be interpreted by many people in the theatre that this is a lesbian relationship," Coghlin said, to which Omooba replied: "No. If it was I wouldn’t have been able to play it."

Omooba has indicated that she would have refused to play the role had the show’s creative team insist that she play the character as a lesbian.

She was later asked about the circumstances surrounding her dismissal, and the tribunal heard how Omooba drafted several versions of a statement to be released when social media criticism of her post was growing. No personal statement from Omooba was shared at the time.

According to evidence released alongside the tribunal, earlier versions of Omooba’s planned statement said her intention "was not to cause offence" but to describe her views as a Christian, however these were omitted in later iterations. In all versions she said she would stand firm in her beliefs.

Emails submitted as evidence said Curve did not release the final statement sent to them because "it is not a retraction and so we cannot do any joined up response at this stage". Omooba did not release the statement herself either.

It reads: "The law protects my freedom of expression as well as freedom of thought, conscience and religion. With regard to the role of Celie, I will not disregard that Celie falls in love with Shug or that Celie believes in God and is black. There is so much to Celie. The role of an actor is to play characters different from myself. As for the personal faith, I will stand firm."

In questioning about this statement, Omooba said she understood that Celie falling in love was "a different kind of love" than her feelings towards her mother or sister, but rejected the suggestion she thought it was sexual love.

"No, in my mind that’s not what it was" she said.

The tribunal will continue for the remainder of this week.'

 

https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/seyi-omooba-tribunal-actor-denies-appearance-in-concert-version-meant-she-was-aware-of-gay-storyline

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 1:02pm

So my understanding is that the novel includes sexual encounters between Shug and Celie. So did she really read the book? If so, what did she think was going on? She is starting to back herself in a corner.

Updated On: 2/9/21 at 01:02 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/4/21 at 1:15pm

Reading the book aside, did she even read the whole script? Did she not read the stage directions that indicate a kiss between Celie and Shug. I mean is this woman really that willfully ignorant?

[Alexander Lamar]

Posted: 2/5/21 at 10:09am

She’s a liar and her story will keep changing to try to make herself the victim.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/5/21 at 10:24am

Even the most cursory of research on The Color Purple brings up its depiction of homosexuality.

And this isn’t an obscure book, here in the US or in the UK. It’s the ****ing Color Purple. It’s exceedingly well known and has been in the public consciousness for decades.

Claiming to be unaware of its well-documented content doesn’t fly.

[Scott Stephen]

Posted: 2/5/21 at 10:27am

As someone who has read the book multiple times, I can easily say the lesbian romance is far more apparent there than the movie or the musical. Walker gives several accounts of their sexual escapades, their kisses that Celie enjoys, and even a line at some point from Shug saying “We’re each other’s people now”. I have no idea how this woman got the idea that Celie wasn’t a lesbian from reading the book.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/9/21 at 10:27pm

I saw the movie as a little kid. While it was demure, even as a child it was clear to me that Celie was a lesbian and Shug was bi.

Also this woman was in a concert version of the show? How did she miss What About Love?!?!?

[jkader]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 2:15am

Hello everyone,
Don't think things will go great for her, in 2011 the High Court already ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation should take precedence over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. echat chatspin

Updated On: 3/26/21 at 02:15 AM

[brian1973]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 5:19pm

She sounds like either a very stupid person, or a horrible one.

She will never work in theatre ever again after this, and rightly so. She tried to get into the wrong industry if she thinks gay people are ‘wrong’.

[fosterfan2]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 5:33pm

She has NO idea what religious discrimination is! She needs to talk to a Holocaust survivor,like of my aunts who was in Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. Or she needs to ask a Muslim about how they were treated after 9/11.

Updated On: 2/10/21 at 05:33 PM

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 9:08pm

brian1973 said: "She sounds like either a very stupid person, or a horrible one."

Porque no los dos?

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 2/17/21 at 5:49am

Omooba's claims against the theatre have been rejected by an employment tribunal. The Curve has issued a very gracious statement: https://twitter.com/CurveLeicester/status/1361956412683870210

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 2/17/21 at 7:30am

I was in absolute disbelief that this woman genuinely thought she would win this case by saying she had no clue Celine was a lesbian, despite being in the show before, and then saying she would have pulled out of the role eventually.

Like. What?! An actual law team came up with that idea and thought they were onto a winner? Beggars belief.

I honestly hope she learns from this and changes her views which have obviously been thrust upon her by her father.

[ggersten]

Posted: 2/17/21 at 11:31am

She was not represented by a legal team. Reportedly, she was represented by a colleague of her father and his religious organization.

[ggersten]

Posted: 3/30/21 at 6:56pm

I can't link to The Stage - but apparently, Seyi Omooba has been ordered to pay the Curve's legal fees which could be in excess of 300k GBP.

[NotTheComfyChair]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 10:22am

Here's the BWW article https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Seyi-Omooba-Ordered-to-Pay-Over-300000-Following-Legal-Action-Against-Curve-Leicester-For-Removal-From-THE-COLOR-PURPLE-20210330

 

This is the Stage article for those who can't use the link at the bottom.

"Seyi Omooba has been ordered to pay the full costs incurred by Curve and Global Artists during her unsuccessful tribunal claim against them, which could exceed £300,000.

Leicester’s Curve has welcomed the news, which followed an application by the theatre and Omooba’s former agency that she pay their costs of responding to the claim.

Curve chief executive Chris Stafford and artistic director Nikolai Foster said in a joint statement that they felt the case "lacked any merit from the outset", but they had been forced to defend themselves at a tribunal "irrespective of facts" and as part of a wider campaign initiated by Omooba’s backers Christian Concern.

The actor now faces a cost order of £259,356 for Curve’s bills and £53,839 for Global’s costs, totalling £313,195. Both sums are subject to "detailed assessment" by the tribunal, meaning a judge will inspect the details of the amounts submitted.

Omooba is supported by Christian Concern’s legal arm, the Christian Legal Centre.

Last month, Omooba lost a two-year legal battle against Curve and Global after she was dismissed from a production of The Color Purple in 2019, and later dropped by the agency. It followed the emergence of a Facebook post, written by Omooba, in which she claimed that homosexuality was not "right" and that she did not believe that people could be born gay.

She brought an employment tribunal case against both parties on grounds of religious discrimination and breach of contract, which was rejected.

According to a judgement published this week, Curve and Global have been successful in applying for their costs to be covered by Omooba.

The judgement agreed with both respondents’ arguments that Omooba’s claims had "no reasonable prospects of success".

At a hearing held on March 18, which Omooba herself did not attend, Curve’s representative Tom Coghlin QC described the litigation as a "hopeless claim" that should never have been brought to tribunal. He said Omooba and her advisers had wanted to "pursue a point of principle in a public forum".

The tribunal’s ruling said Christian Legal Centre was "deeply invested in both bringing the claim and in continuing with it", and that while there was nothing wrong in publicising cases because of their social issues, "it is however wrong to promote and use a weak case, especially when… overlooking or mis-stating the facts in the claimant’s own evidence".

"The theatre and the agency, in facing allegations of unlawful discrimination, risked their good reputations in the theatre world, and [Curve] was especially at risk when dependent on public funds. Using the case as a publicity opportunity, rather than fighting it on its merits to redress wrong, transferred Christian Concern’s public relations budget to the respondents," it said.

The tribunal concluded that the "threshold tests were met" as to the claims having no reasonable prospect of success, and that Omooba "should bear the whole cost of the respondents’ defence, subject to detailed assessment by a costs-trained judge of the amounts claimed".

When costs exceed £20,000, it is common practice for the tribunal to make an order for a detailed assessment of the bills.

Stafford and Foster’s statement said: "Unfortunately, Curve, Global Artists and the tribunal process have been used as part of a wider campaign orchestrated by Christian Concern which has resulted in significant human and financial cost, and we have had to suffer inaccurate and false reporting on this case by Seyi Omooba’s own representatives."

During the hearing it was revealed that Omooba’s legal team did not provide any evidence as to her ability to pay, as requested by Curve and Global’s representatives.

The judgement said: "The tribunal cannot assume that a party is impecunious because they have not supplied any evidence. Indeed, if that were the case, no one would provide evidence."

Omooba’s representative, Pavel Stroilov, suggested during the hearing that if she were forced to pay costs, either the Christian Legal Centre or Christian Concern would campaign for donations towards the amount.

The ruling said it believed "from the number of cases that [CLC] have supported, and the range of services offered, that there are substantial resources or access to them".

The ruling acknowledges that, unlike in civil courts, the "normal" procedure for employment tribunals is that both sides pay their own costs, and there is no automatic expectation for the losing side to pay the costs of the other, except when a claim has no reasonable prospect of success and/or when a party has acted "abusively, destructively or otherwise unreasonably".

Global Artists and Christian Concern have been contacted for comment."

 

https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/seyi-omooba-facing-300k-bill-following-unsuccessful-tribunal
 

Updated On: 3/31/21 at 10:22 AM

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 6:21pm

ggersten said: "She was not represented by a legal team. Reportedly, she was represented by a colleague of her father and his religious organization."

One wonders if she has any control of her own life.

I have to agree with the OP that this does sound like religious discrimination--the beliefs she expressed were specifically religious beliefs, whether we like them or not, and it's because of her religious beliefs that she expressed herself as she did. People here keep conflating "what Jesus taught" with religious belief. But there's taking Jesus's words and only Jesus's words from the New Testament, and then there's looking  at some of the Letters or passages in the O.T. and placing all of that into a particular context. There's a whole lot of argument about whether the Bible does or doesn't condemn homosexuality. And, anyway, religion isn't just "the Bible," let alone just Jesus's words, but what some group comes to believe using the Bible as part of the foundation for a theology. Her comments may not have been, to many people, "Christian," but they were religious. Offensive. And religious. "Religious" doesn't mean just the things we believe, but what any organized group believes. There are all kinds of religious beliefs in the world, a great many of them unpleasant and offensive to us, to many people.

However, there was no way she was going to win, and I'm not exactly weeping that she lost.

But I think she's lost all the way around, has been lost for a long time, and will continue to be, in that she was raised with very prejudicial religious beliefs, she seems to have been controlled by her dad and his friends throughout the whole lawsuit, and now she's indebted for who knows how many thousands of dollars in legal costs that she probably has no way to pay. A life ruined on the cusp of success--and it all goes back to the religion in which she was raised.

I wish she hadn't posted what she posted on FB, but at the same time, I don't understand what it had to do with her ability to play the part (for all the arguments here about how she just couldn't have played Celie because of her prejudices, I'm not seeing any comments from cast or production team that she was incapable of fulfilling the role), and I wish people could separate what she might have done onstage from what she wrote as herself offstage. 

I am very aware no one was ever going to do that.

If she posted these comments, but was never rude or disrespectful to any gay persons in the show, and played the role as she was directed, did all of this need to happen?

I guess the question remaining is how her comments, which were sure to get publicized, would have hurt the box office, which is a fair thing for the producers to consider. 

Updated On: 3/31/21 at 06:21 PM

[ggersten]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 6:54pm

I believes she testified she would not play Celie as gay and would not have accepted the job if she knew the production would have Celie as a gay character. 

Presumably, the production team thought she had the talent to play the role - that's why they offered it to her.

So, she would have quit or been fired early on. That was the legal problem with her case. She was never going to perform the show. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 7:12pm

ggersten said: "I believes she testified she would notplay Celie as gay and would not have accepted the job if she knew the production would have Celie as a gay character.

Presumably, the production team thought she had the talent to play the role - that's why they offered it to her.

So, she would have quit or been fired early on. That was the legal problem with her case. She was never going to perform the show."

She definitely would have gotten fired had she refused to play the character as gay. Though it's difficult to know what she means by this--is she saying she wouldn't do the actions or say the lines her character is is supposed to do and say, or that in her mind they would have a different meaning than other performers (and audience members) take them to have. I'm reminded of Matt Damon insisting Ripley wasn't gay, when anyone who watches the film clearly can see that he is. 

I'd have rather she got fired at that point--or if she had acted intolerantly towards the LGBT performers in the cast or crew--than for what was on her FB page.

Updated On: 3/31/21 at 07:12 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 9:39pm

The lawsuit was, to put it mildly, hare-brained. She was not discriminated against. She was hired to do a job. She announced that she would not do that job. You don't get paid for doing a job you refuse to do. That's it. You are hired as a bartender. Your religious beliefs preclude you from serving alcohol. You say you didn't know there was booze in the bottles. Whether that's reasonable or not, you are not willing and able to do that job that you accepted. No employer is expected to pay someone not to do their job. She stated no cause of action for which she was entitled to any relief. In the UK (unlike in the USA) the prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of a frivolous lawsuit. 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 9:56pm

Matt Damon thinks The Talented Mr. Ripley is straight? What?!?

This girl is just sad. She’s clearly just brainwashed by her family and community. And for the rest of her life, when you Google her name, this dragged-out incident is all people will see. Think of the life and career she could have had without being so manipulated by her elders.

Based on the article, it seems that Christian Concern and other zealots will likely pay for everything. Perhaps that’s best. She’s lost any shot at a career and will surely eventually come to deeply regret the negative international attention she’s gotten for this debacle. This sh*t will be practically carved into her gravestone in the end. And for what?