NYTimes.com
Another hour passes, another chance to sound off on Judith Regan. As we've mentioned before, the fallen publishing czaress has no intention of going gentle into post-magnate obscurity, having already hired legendary Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields to represent her after Friday's career cataclysm. Presumably one does not hire Fields, the industry powerhouse who won $250 million for Jeffrey Katzenberg after he was ousted from Disney, to send a polite but strongly-worded letter. So it's safe to say that Regan plans to sue, leaving us to speculate about what legal recourse she may have against Rupert Murdoch and HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman.
Breach of contract is the first likely answer. Regan remained a contract employee with HarperCollins after signing a contract that included "probably the most generous salary in book publishing," according to Vanity Fair. The publishing house then leaked to the New York Times that Regan was fired for making anti-Semitic comments to another HarperCollins employee, considered the "final straw after other recent episodes of what were deemed improper behavior." Regardless of her contract's specifics, racially-offensive statements in the workplace are usually sufficient to let an employer terminate an employment agreement (though whether this rule applies may hinge on the contract's definition of "good cause" for termination). Still, there's the issue of the context in which the comments were made - as the recent suit against the "Friends" writing staff illustrated, context can play a part in determining whether behavior is harassing or inappropriate. Regan spent years at HarperCollins and was notorious for her abrasive demeanor; it's unlikely that she suddenly (and conveniently for HarperCollins) crossed a line for the first time last week. Plus, given the abruptness of the firing, not to mention its execution (Regan's office belongings were reportedly impounded), Fields has plenty of room to dig up a breach of contract argument.
Additional legal hoopla could ensue over the publishing rights to books on Regan's current slate. Should she decide to join an existing imprint or start her own company, she may want to take her roster of books with her - not an unheard of concept, as Variety pointed out. Plus there's the issue of damage to her reputation. The Times' anti-Semitic report raises the level of harm done to Regan's name from very bad to potentially catastrophic. There's still no official word as to whether or not the woman herself is Jewish, a fact that bears directly on the question of whether the remarks were in fact anti-Semitic and/or would have been perceived as such. But debates on the subtleties of cultural mores aside, the initial result of HarperCollins' releasing this information to the media is clear: Regan now has anti-Semitism linked to her name, which could damage her prospects for future employment, as well as her current interests outside HarperCollins. Radar reports that the Anti-Defamation League is already "looking into" the allegations against her, and things could get worse for other deals like her show with Sirius Satellite Radio, a company led by Jewish CEO Mel Karmazin. While truth is an absolute defense to defamation (meaning that, if she made the remarks in question, she can't complain that HarperCollins defamed her by releasing them or the Times by printing them), unanswered questions about their contextual meaning leaves ample space for argument, and interpretation.
