Welcome back to On Production. Today we're talking about workplace risk, not as an abstract legal concept, but as something that shows up in real production workflows. My guest today is Jesse Weinstein, a New York City based employment attorney and partner at Phillips & Associates. Jesse represents employees and executives in matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistleblower issues.

‍

And he's also a former Bronx prosecutor. So he brings a trial tested lens to how facts get established and how timelines get built. In this conversation, we're going to focus on prevention and practical systems that protect everyone on a production, clear reporting pathways, solid documentation practices, fair investigations and leadership habits that reduce risk before problems escalate. Jesse, it's great to have you here.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (00:52.619)

Thanks for having me, Cameron.

‍

Cameron Woodward (00:54.228)

So in film and TV environments, where do you most often see legal risk begin operationally? it, know, like unclear supervision, inconsistent standards, rushed onboarding, informal culture, or is it something else?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (01:08.725)

I think it's a combination of ambiguity and culture, right? You need established parameters so people know who they should go to with a problem. And that's not even necessarily, you know, discrimination or harassment, but just having a clearly established pipeline to go to somebody when there's an issue. You know, when we find that missing and we see ambiguity and we understand that there is a hierarchical structure, that gray area leaves a lot of room for abuse.

‍

Cameron Woodward (01:39.342)

Can you maybe help us understand from the cases that you've represented or clients that you've spoken with, what are the patterns or the things that you think are earliest warning signs that a production is drifting into high risk territory?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (01:54.443)

So I think you look for two things, right? Lack of visibility. You have a director, you have an executive producer that people only see when the cameras are rolling. That doesn't make themselves visible. And then you also, you see people running loose lips, right? People are, it's a free for all. People are making jokes that are otherwise inappropriate. On a music set, almost feels less like a professional workplace sometimes. On a production set or any.

‍

production set than it does a corporate atmosphere, right? So when you enter a territory where people are just making all sorts of comments, and then you hear people saying, that's just the way it is here. Don't let it roll off your shoulders. This is the way it is. And then you also see the top of the hierarchical structure, only in limited circumstances. Those are big red flags to me.

‍

Cameron Woodward (02:48.576)

Do you see particularly common lawsuits arise and can you describe what those look like?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (02:53.855)

Yep, sure. So oftentimes there's power dynamics. That's really an abusive power dynamic is really what forms any lawsuit in this context. And so in the production set context, you have a bright eyed, bushy tailed, entry level person who really wants to break into the industry being taken advantage of even by a mid-level manager or mid-level person on the set who knows that this lower level person is trying to break into the industry.

‍

and there's a lot of abuse there. And that oftentimes, if it's sexual, it escalates and materializes into a full-blown quid pro quo situation and sometimes even worse, a sexual assault.

‍

Cameron Woodward (03:37.624)

super interesting. When you think about productions that, you know, they're in many cases temporary workplaces with high turnover, what prevention systems work best when people are hired quickly and, you know, teams form overnight?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (03:55.403)

So I think that this starts day zero is actually when the contracts are written, right? And having in the contract established parameters for harassment training. And then on day one, having the top of the production come and speak to everybody on set about zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination. Having clearly established independent parameters for people to report discrimination or harassment or sexual assault or sexual harassment.

‍

Again, I think ambiguity is the enemy here. The more clearly established things are in the beginning. And also the cultural expectation, right? It trickles down from the top. The director is coming down and saying, I'm not going to tolerate any of this. You're not going to be here if you're going to act inappropriately. So let's have some fun. Let's make an amazing production. But let's be professionals here. I think that's something that should be permeating the air from the second anybody even gets involved in a production.

‍

Cameron Woodward (04:55.33)

Do the claims that arise in the cases that you often see and represent have to do with behavior happening on set at the margin? That is to say, not when lights, camera, action are rolling, but just in workplace relationships? Or is this actually, you see claims that arise just from people feeling unsafe on set during the actual work being conducted itself?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (05:20.917)

Both. I mean, there are blatant things that happen on set when the cameras are not rolling that the harassment can occur anywhere. really, depending on what jurisdiction you're in, in New York, a supervisor can be liable for sexual harassment, discrimination for activity that occurs outside the workplace. Everybody's out for drinks at happy hour after a long day in production, and there's a supervisory person sexually harassing a lower level associate on the

‍

on the production and you're in New York for example, the company's on the hook and so is the supervisor potentially in a lawsuit. So in most jurisdictions there's no geographical restriction on where this can happen.

‍

Cameron Woodward (06:03.596)

Yep, yep. It's interesting. It's like within a lot of productions, you know, they differ greatly from like a classic corporate structure where there's very clear reporting lines. it depends on the scale of the production, of course, but I'm curious, like.

‍

Have you seen successful, or like what is your opinion on a successful reporting system that cast and crew people can trust, especially when the chain of command is, know, tight and maybe careers feel fragile, especially in entertainment?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (06:34.965)

So I think there's a couple of ways that you can address that to bring comfort to the clarity of reporting. You have an anonymous reporting hotline or an ombudsman. You can have somebody who's appointed at various levels of the production that is there to have an open door policy. You have the director, again on day one, say, I have an open door policy. And again, I know that there has to be some attenuation from certain level people and there has to be.

‍

a productive set, right? It can't be a free for all. But I think people will feel safer if they're told from day one that the culture is you should report something, if you see something, say something, and then knowing that they can do it either anonymously at a lower level or they could go right to the top and they're only going to be protected. They're not going to be penalized.

‍

Cameron Woodward (07:23.37)

Have you seen things that make people not report until things just escalate to the point of litigation?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (07:31.615)

You know, Cameron, it's kind of a sad situation. I've seen this and basically in the entertainment world, I've seen this in every case that I've had. And what I think it is, is the cutthroat nature and the competitiveness of the entertainment world, right? So many people want to break in, only a few really make it to the highest levels, right? And Hollywood is scrutinized by the whole world. It's a centerpiece of what everybody's looking at. And it's a well-known...

‍

well-known thing that people in abusive power dynamics have a crazy amount of power to blacklist people or to get people not eligible to return to productions. So I think you find people in a position where they're like, how much can I take without actually becoming a squeaky wheel? Because like any industry, circles are small. Everybody knows everybody. And you don't want to be in a situation if you are an employee working on a production set where

‍

you're not only blacklisted from the production you're on, but then maybe another production in the future where people are not even predatory, but just don't want a known squeaky wheel to come on. So it's a really tricky situation. And I think they just reach a boiling point. All my clients have reached a boiling point. They can roll off the shoulders with comments, but then touching happens and then it's just predatorial and they can't take it anymore.

‍

Cameron Woodward (08:55.182)

Really interesting. we talk about your, mean, in some of these discussions you're describing or in some of your comments you're describing, like kind of classic retaliation in production terms. And you you're mentioning like people being blackballed or just like some of these types of very pernicious types of behaviors and cultures that can permeate from a claim.

‍

know, production setting, what are the most common, like retaliation shaped actions? is it scheduling, call times, job assignments? Like, what, what, what does it look like, you know, in practice for producers to sort of be able to look around corners to make sure that these types of practices aren't happening on their sets. And then, you know, are there, are there any things that producers should really avoid doing after a complaint to prevent, you know, retaliation risk?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (09:47.007)

Yeah, I mean, it's an excellent, excellent question because I think that the entertainment industry is so unique in this context, you know, in the general employment law context, when we're looking at retaliation, we want that adverse employment action, which is, you know, legal term for being fired, being suspended, being demoted, you know, having pay cuts. Like those are the classic big pieces of fruit retaliation. And then, you know,

‍

Secondary to that, we see in a normal workplace setting, know, being iced for meetings, being sort of made a lame duck employee, having duties taken away from you. So is it consequential in the normal corporate context? Yes. But I think in the entertainment context, on a production set, having job opportunities taken from you, having any tasks taken from you can be a critical, critical...

‍

component of a person's ability to thrive in the industry and grow and get more opportunities. Like having schedules change at the last minute, all those things that you mentioned may individually look like minor instances of retaliation, but each of them have a critical impact. And to answer the second part of your question about what producers can do, I think they have to act quickly and they can't draw conclusions. It seems simplified, right?

‍

They can't just assume that the person being accused actually did what they did. And they can also assume that the person who complained is wrong and it's just a squeaky wheel because I think there's a frustration with people who complain about harassment and discrimination because maybe effectively it gets in the way of productivity and efficiency. And when you have supervisors like, you know, or higher level people like producers who are so mission oriented and have so many outcome.

‍

based, any distraction, even one that's protecting somebody legally, is critical to productivity. So I think that producers have to separate themselves from getting the job done and keep that big picture in their view, but really address the instant matter at hand, because that could turn into a multimillion dollar lawsuit and they could be named as an individual defendant for not doing enough.

‍

Cameron Woodward (12:04.032)

Right, right. You know, there's always two sides to every story and every case is different and unique. And I'm curious, you know, how do you separate legitimate performance management from retaliation optics?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (12:17.749)

So you have to look at everything fact-based, right? There's gonna be a world where somebody complains about something that protects them legally, right? They complain about sexual harassment, but maybe they're also not performing well at the same time. those people, like the managers and the supervisors and the high-level employers have a right to keep things efficient and to address performance issues. But again, I think broad sweeping the best way any supervisor

‍

position or manager level position on a production set can avoid the perception of retaliation is to properly and promptly document things and to really stay on top of the complaint. Don't make an impulse decision to send somebody home because they complained just because you're removing part of the problem. I think if they act quickly when they learn of something,

‍

and their actions demonstrate that they're concerned about addressing the conduct, then all of the subsequent things that they do on the record, at least from a litigation perspective, look like it's not retaliatory. And it is performance-based, potentially. That makes sense.

‍

Cameron Woodward (13:26.732)

Yeah, does. Jesse, this actually brings me to another question I'm curious about. know, like production is really unique. You you've got producers, UPM, a line producer, department heads. When something goes wrong on set, who actually carries the legal exposure? Like, how do you think about the chain of liability on a production versus a traditional employer?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (13:48.511)

Well, and that's the scary thing about being somebody with some any sort of supervisory authority in the country, right? You could find yourself being an individual defendant. Again, that's jurisdiction based, right? It might be different in in Amarillo, Texas than it is in New York City, depending on where a movie set is. And in New York City, there is an automatic liability for a company if a supervisor discriminates or harasses a subordinate. The company doesn't even have to know.

‍

that it happened. It literally, can be level one person being sexually harassed by level two. So I think in that situation, it really, it can go, it can extend five, 10 different people. If the production assistant, and I know I keep focusing on production assistants, it really can be anybody on the production. If the person who is reporting sexual harassment or discrimination escalates it to one person and

‍

then that person doesn't escalate it, then you you maybe have that one person who can be a defendant. But if like, if it's escalated to four different people and then it looks like they're covering up what happened, then you can potentially name all four of those people as individual defendants. So it is a tricky situation, but there's, it's really conduct based. you aid and abet sexual harassment, and I'm focusing on sexual harassment, if you aid and abet it, or you allow it to happen or you don't prevent it, you could be on the hook.

‍

Cameron Woodward (15:18.806)

Right. Yeah, I mean, you have been focusing on sexual harassment. I mean, are there other common types of claims that you represent against production companies for your clients beyond that?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (15:27.359)

Yep, I've had race discrimination cases on certain sets. There was a big television set on one of my old cases where the talent was a black woman who wanted to have her hair a certain way. And there were comments made about her hair, the tropes, the stereotypical tropes about black women's hair that were made. And she complained about it and ended up having one of her whole entire scenes

‍

deleted from, you know what mean, that she was in. there was some of that retaliation that wasn't kicking her off the show. I mean, this was like, we talent. So, I mean, it really happens in a lot of contexts. I've also seen it in the disability context, you know, somebody, somebody gets sick in the middle of a production, it happens, somebody hurts themselves, needs a medical accommodation. The production company can't just say no, they have to interact in some sort of a process with whoever's requesting an accommodation and

‍

you know, what that looks like is, okay, your doctor is saying that you shouldn't lift any more than 20 pounds for three weeks. We need to see a doctor's note. You know, that's how you engage in the interactive process. Saying no will get you in trouble. Just saying like, nope, nope, can't do it, because you got to lift more than 20 pounds. So I've seen it in that sense. I mean, of course, like the majority of the cases that I've seen are sexual harassment and sexual assault, but I have seen race discrimination about.

‍

hairstyles and comments about tropes about hairstyles in a disability context.

‍

Cameron Woodward (16:59.724)

That's interesting. I want to talk about the cost to a production because I think that's obviously something that producers should be really aware of. I mean, what's interesting, I've been exposed to clients who have, you know, moved to Wrapbook specifically trying to get around issues related to like employee classification lawsuits.

‍

so they just really need a great tool to be able to like navigate those complexities so that they can remove those liabilities specifically because like you can go. Sometimes for years building great profits, get hit with a class action lawsuit and then have to settle and literally like erase unbelievable amounts of profits that you had been like counting on to like survive. yet like, you know, a court case obliterates it. So, you know, I'm curious, like

‍

maybe not on a classification side, but like on a workplace claim where you focused your attentions, you know, like what does that actually cost of production? Not necessarily the headline settlement number, but like the full picture. What does the disruption look like? You know, insurance, schedule, reputation, crew that won't come back.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (18:09.515)

So on the defense side, what you're dealing with when you get outside counsel, because that's what happens, right? You get a letter from a lawyer like me, it's bound to head to litigation potentially if it doesn't resolve. It usually gets punted to outside counsel. And the question of liability insurance is always there. There might be a huge deductible, there might not. But overall, taking a case from beginning to end can be $200,000 $300,000 in attorney's fees.

‍

before you even get to the question of what the verdict is or what the settlement is. And so that's one layer of it. How much is it going to cost for actual representation? What am I looking at in terms of the costs of actual litigation? Because if I'm getting a case against a production company and I get a call list and I subpoena 11 people for depositions, that's probably $15,000 right there just to print it onto the transcripts. It doesn't account.

‍

for the two partners at the law firm on the other side who are charging $1,500 an hour to sit there for the deposition while I ask questions. So it is tremendously expensive.

‍

Cameron Woodward (19:16.056)

Hmm. You had mentioned that like in the event of a production coming across a crew member that's raising a concern on set that you really don't want to handle it badly because that's where retaliation claims come from. You were discussing that. What does good reporting and response systems look like on a production from your opinion? You know, something that actually protects both the crew member and the production.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (19:40.715)

So when there are clear parameters, and I know I've said this a million times, when there are clear parameters established for reporting and the when and the who are done promptly. When, immediately. Who, the right person. That's really like, you look at chronology and you look at points of chronology in any type of case as a lawyer. And so the first chain of events is the harassment or discrimination. And then the second chain of events is the reporting.

‍

we look at something called temporal proximity. That's basically measuring the time between when somebody complains about something and when the company responds. And the sooner in time that the company responds, the more retaliatory it looks if they do something bad, if they fire somebody. If you complain about harassment and get fired a week later, presumptively under the law, that looks very retaliatory. If you report something and then the next day,

‍

somebody reaches out to you and says, I'd like to interview you offset to get what's going on. That's the sort of stuff that protects companies. That's the sort of thing that I would love to see happen on production companies is that they have clear reporting paths of who you can report to and people are acting promptly without fear of retribution because it's also a risk for the people who are fielding these complaints to, know, that if I escalate this, I'm going to get blacklisted. We want to create a culture where nobody's career is on the line just because they're acting with integrity.

‍

Cameron Woodward (21:07.854)

A slight pivot, I'm curious though, because post Me Too movement, there's been a lot of discussion and movement around NDAs and what productions can require in settlements. What can and can't productions do now with NDAs? I know you work a lot in New York, so maybe that's a good area to focus. And how has that changed the calculus for both sides?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (21:30.975)

So, I mean, for example, there's a, like, with NDAs in New York, you can't just put it in front of somebody and tell them sign it right now or the money's gone. You know, that's one thing that's changed in the production side of things. And even though it's law in New York and, you know, that's something that has been embraced, I think, around the country is that people have a consideration period when they get offered an NDA because they, know.

‍

I, my world, there's a lot of NDAs and I negotiate a lot of those, but the other, the other side of the coin is that people may feel like they're being silenced or they're paid for silence or that it's very transactional. So I mean, what studios and what production companies can't do, what anybody can't do is just slap an NDA in front of somebody and tell them you have to sign this right now or I'm going to blacklist you or you're going to be, or the money's going to be off the table. You know, there has to be a consideration period. We also have a revocation period in New York, which is.

‍

you have seven days to revoke your signature. Even if you actually sign the NDA, you can revoke your signature during that period. So, to answer your question, what these production companies can't do is immediately put out the fire by having somebody sign an NDA. It's not over until that consideration period is passed and until after that signature is not revoked.

‍

Cameron Woodward (22:46.798)

That's very interesting. Are you seeing productions still using NDAs in ways that create more risk than they prevent? Obviously there's two really good examples there, which is a consideration period. then as well, like, I can't remember what you just said, but like the, consideration

‍

Yeah, so I think that with respect to the NDAs, it's kind of mysterious. My whole career, I don't quite understand what's going on on the other side and understand we saw like the attorneys give as little as they can. They don't want to break attorney-client privilege, right? But there are certain things I can argue for in a settlement agreement to ensure that abuse doesn't happen to my clients, right? I can't stop them from

‍

sexually harassing other people. And that's a whole other conversation. People have mindsets. People just sexually harass everybody. It's not usually a one-off thing. But we can have non-disparagement instructions. We can force in order. We can have the company have to instruct the person who's been accused of sexual harassment not to sexually harass that person in any way. But what we can't do is have them sign off on changing policy or that this person's been fired.

‍

or that this person's been told never to do this again to anybody else because that could jam them up in the future, right? The broader they make that, then they're responsible for the harasser's conduct even when they're not around. So there's a balance between using the right words that protect your client, but to be in all honesty, I still don't have a grasp on exactly what the defendants are being told by their counsel to do or not do.

‍

Cameron Woodward (24:31.406)

Very interesting. pivoting a little bit to a different subject, there's a version of production where it's within a large studio, lots of shareholders, great HR infrastructure and pathways, very good reporting, legal review on every deal memo. They might use Wrapbook and be totally using excellent tools and managing their productions very well. That might be very realistic on a huge studio show.

‍

But what about a $2 million indie with a four week shoot? Like where's the line between best practice and what's actually achievable? And what's the minimum of a smaller production in terms of the needs you've seen that really have to be in place?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (25:16.555)

Well, first of all, Cameron, I'd hope that the big studios are using Wrapbook. as far as what can happen on a smaller production, Best practices are to establish them and do them the same way every single time. If you're a production company that does indie films, anti-harassment policies and mandatory harassment training that are in the contracts from day one. If you're a production company, you require your director to talk to the whole entire set to establish the cultural expectation.

‍

These are things that don't necessarily cost a ton of money. This is an extra, we're talking a paragraph extra in a contract and we're talking about a three minute speech from the top down and establishing clear paths for reporting. You do those three things. You're doing a broad sweep no matter what the budget or the size of the production is to avoid accusations of retaliation or inefficiency in responding to these complaints.

‍

Cameron Woodward (26:10.53)

I think that alone is like a really good piece of advice worth its weight in gold, which is...

‍

You know, like sometimes, Jesse, these are not even like established companies that produce multiple productions. It could be a bunch of friends coming together, hiring crew, executing a production, and then they never see each other again. But that doesn't mean that they don't still have liability in the event of a claim arising. So like, if you're a small, small indie, to your point, bringing the leaders together and like very clearly articulating this to the rest of the crew as to like what the culture on the set's going to be.

‍

that seems like a really affordable and very, very good piece of advice for both, of course, having a great work environment, but then also like limiting liability.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (26:54.827)

Yeah, and when you're talking about an indie production versus a big scale production in a studio, like literally smaller proximity and smaller number of people, it should be easier for an indie production to contain. And you find abuse in big studio productions. I mean, I've also found them in smaller productions. It can happen where there's more than one person, right? But if you're an indie production, you have an opportunity to really create culture that's that...

‍

sets in well because there's less people and it's smaller scale. So take advantage of the intimacy, say, of the setting and really pound in that culture and highlight what's already been established in the employment contract. You have to report it. You must say something if you're a supervisor. This is how you do it. And you have to do harassment training and you have to know the anti-harassment policy.

‍

Cameron Woodward (27:45.987)

Very interesting. So, you know, I've read a little bit about how employment law and entertainment is shifting. Like EEOC guidance has changed. States are moving on classification. One that's very popular in the media for people that follow production is like intimacy coordinators are becoming standard. What's the legal trend right now that producers should be paying attention to, but you know, maybe aren't.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (28:10.911)

So I think that as we evolve, we should be looking at what legislations are doing because they're reopening cases. The laws are like the Gender Motivated Violence Act in New York is reviving cases that would have already been outside the statute of limitations. As a country, I think the shift is that we're trying to give point is any opportunity that we can to speak up and to pursue legal rights. And so even an intimacy coordinator,

‍

can create a situation that might lend itself to a bad fact pattern. It sounds like it should put people on edge. I know you don't want people walking on pins and needles, but there is also a line that protects employers. If an intimacy coordinator has no idea, for example, that the two actors on site have some sort of a situation where one's sexually harassing the other.

‍

that scene might be part of the actual case. And we've seen this in a lot of public cases, what happens on set and becoming lawsuits. But it's all part of the facts. But there also is a line where, hey, listen, I didn't know about this. How can the whole production company be liable when so little of this happened and nobody complained about anything? So I don't want people in the employer context to think I got to walk on eggshells everywhere I go. But the trend is there and you have to be aware of it. You should be able to come to work and do your job and not look over your shoulder every time.

‍

But just know that there are activists, lobbyists, and legislators all over the country that are trying to create every opportunity they can to hold abuse of power in the context of the spotlight and to hold people accountable.

‍

Cameron Woodward (29:51.631)

Is there a case working through the system right now that you think could meaningfully change how productions operate in the next year or two? Just curious on like upcoming precedent.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (30:05.129)

Yeah, so I mean, like one big topic in New York has been the Gender Motivated Violence Act. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with it, but it's a statute that went to all the ditty lawsuits and all those lawsuits that we saw coming up at one time. And it revived cases, regardless of how old they were, as long as there was some sort of discriminatory animus towards somebody because of their gender. So all the sexual harassment, sexual assault cases that were gender-based could be revived.

‍

And what I'm really into, the big question that's been bouncing back and forth between legislatures and appeals is whether a corporation can actually be held liable. So if you are a production company and you try to cover up for talent that sexually assaulted somebody, as the statute's written, only the person who creates the sexual harassment can be held accountable. But I think what we could see in the next couple of years is a shift in legislation where even if

‍

something happens between two people, the whole production could be held accountable. I mean, and I think that this question is actually in New York and bouncing around a lot. They just revived the statute again and tried to codify that, you know, can hold corporations available, but I suspect that other entities are gonna appeal those cases when they get filed in court. So I think the statute is gonna get challenged and I think that's gonna be a very big question for New York anyways in the next couple of years.

‍

Cameron Woodward (31:32.738)

Very interesting. So, you you've spent your career representing people who get hurt or claim to get hurt by bad production practices. If you were producing a show tomorrow, like actually running the operation, what would you do differently than what you see most productions doing?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (31:51.267)

I would reinforce to the whole entire production set, and this might seem minimal, that this is a culture where we want people to speak up when they see something wrong. None of you are going to be penalized for escalating what you think is unethical or unlawful or inappropriate behavior because we're here to make a movie, we're here to make a show, we're not here to condone or promote bad behavior. Cameron, I've seen it so many times on sets where

‍

where people, are just standing there completely shocked when they see what they see or they learn what they learn. And I understand the human reaction. But when I talk to these witnesses, part of the shock is, I can't believe this is happening. Obviously, there's the human reaction. But part of the shock is like, ugh, why did I have to see this? Because now I have this dilemma. Do I have to tell somebody? Do I not? Should I intervene? Should I not? I mean, I've seen it where there's 20 people in a room watching something happen. And...

‍

They're just there to make they don't do anything and they freeze. And I think that what I would do differently on that set is, and what didn't happen on that set is I would make the hierarchical structure known and have those people talk to everybody from day one and say, you'll actually get in more trouble if you don't say something.

‍

Cameron Woodward (33:06.264)

Super, super interesting. What's one document every production should have that most don't?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (33:14.706)

code of conduct.

‍

Cameron Woodward (33:16.366)

Great. How about most common thing a producer says in a deposition that makes your job much easier?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (33:23.755)

I did not escalate that. And who did you tell after that when you became aware? I didn't tell anybody, I just sent them home. Why'd you do that? Well, I thought separating the parties would be the best thing to do and we had to get the production done. That will make my case right there. If you didn't escalate it, game over.

‍

Cameron Woodward (33:45.42)

Hmm. Union or non-union, which produces more claims?

‍

I think the union's amazing. But again, we're, you know, like, I don't think that that has stopped what I've seen to be abuse on production sets. I've seen a mixture and I don't think one is more prevalent than the other. And I think the, you know, the union has the collective bargaining agreement and they're, you know, they have their own code of conduct. But again, I think that people find a way to attenuate themselves, you know, from certain documents. I don't see one.

‍

more prevailing sort of set.

‍

Cameron Woodward (34:27.224)

Great, great insight. Is there one thing or is there anything that the intimacy coordinator role gets right that the rest of like production HR or production teams should learn from?

‍

Jesse Weinstein (34:39.283)

I think, yes, I think the one thing is that they are actually looking at a micro level, individualized, highly individualized situation and making sure that everybody's comfortable. I think that's a microcosm of what should happen on the whole entire set. We need an intimacy coordinator for the whole entire set, not intimacy, but we need a culture coordinator. There's a chief people officer in every Fortune 500 company. There should be someone on the set who, it doesn't have to be their sole job.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (35:09.237)

But you take somebody who's the people person who, you know, there's always some person in every organization, you're like, wow, this person is really great with people, you know, like make sure that this person's walking around and upholding the values of the production's culture.

‍

Cameron Woodward (35:22.37)

That's super insightful. Okay, how about this? Compliant production in three words.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (35:29.301)

clear path for complaining, set cultural expectations from day one, uphold cultural expectations regularly so it's not forgotten.

‍

Cameron Woodward (35:39.276)

Beautiful. Jesse, thank you so much for showing us what productions look like from the other side of a claim. Not as a warning, but really as just like a blueprint for doing it better. From my view, if there's a takeaway, it's sort of like legal risk on a production is an abstract. It lives in the systems and the culture that you build on set.

‍

and the reporting structures you put in place and then the decisions you make in prep before anyone even steps on set. Like I think you've made that very clear. So thank you so much for joining, like very, very insightful.

‍

Jesse Weinstein (36:13.471)

Thank you for having me, Cameron.