She was representing Treasure Island Media in the OSHA case they lost that pretty much defacto makes the condom law statewide.
I have had a few people tell me that The FSC has no affiliation with APAC but nobody will actually come out and say thatthis lawyer is NOT involved.
I stand behind my story on APAC and Tynan, too many people have given me info indicating that lawyers is indeed the puppet master there
never have I seen so many people repeatedly take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot…
11 Responses
Karen Tynan Was the Lawyer Who Lost the Condom case http://t.co/SXvVHI4KiM
http://www.aidshealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TIM-OSHA-ruling-clean-copy-1-2014.pdf
No doubt the AHF would like to give a big thank you to Karen Tynan. Never before has any lawyer been stupid enough to take this to appeal, therfore setting the legal precedent.
And to the regular industry apologists who have maintained the independent contractor argument, read pages 22-25 and you will see that argument shredded to peices.
This is a long read, but you will see virtually every single argument the industry has ever put forward completely debunked, and no amount of spin from AVN, Mark Kernes, or Dianned Duke, or the apologists can change that.
Slow and steady wins the race, and he who laughs last laughs best. And it aint over yet.
Jay Mckenney liked this on Facebook.
I would just like to state that I hope most of the performers who were featured in the PORN 101 video had no knowledge of any FSC affiliation. It would be extremely disappointing that performers would claim to be advocates for performers while stabbing them in the back.
Although, the fact that any testing system details were pretty much left out of the video says alot.. there wasn’t even ONE mention of “Our testing system works.” Just something about protocols and checking ID’s…
Karen Tynan, “WE will be appealing the decision with a petition for reconsideration based on the grounds that the decision was unsupported by the facts.”
And no, she isnt kidding. If you read the 36 page ruling you will see that most of the facts are directly from the forms that the employees filled out on the day of the shoot, under the supervision of a TIM(treasureisland media) employee. And a bunch of the other facts are on VIDEO TAPE.
It will be interesting to see which specific facts she is referring to, probably more funny than interesting.
OSHA and AHF welcome this appeal, and would welcome an appeal all the way to the supreme court(or california). But I have a feeling this appeal might never happen, after all, the industry does not want any higher court setting even a stronger precedent.
This is what you get when you pick your lawyer by doing a google search. LOL. And now she says they’re going to appeal. If I were a conspiracy theory nut I would think she is actaully working for the AHF. There was a reason that nobody ever appealed their OSHA citations in the past, and this ruling is exactly that reason. Nobody ever appealed because they knew they would lose,but thank you Karen Tynan for setting the precendent, now please, lets go to a higher court and reaffirm this decision. What makes me think the industry heavyweights likey Flynt and Hirsh will convince Ms Tynan to not appeal.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120119/articles/120119377
http://karentynanattorney.com/
A little more info onthe OSHA specialist lawyer who claims to be a performer advocate. The article has the quote from douglas that he found her doing a google search. ONLY IN PORN
I think it might be rash to conclude from this decision that anything has really changed at all. It has ALWAYS been the law that most porn performers are not independent contractors but employees–anyone who has read the employee/independent contractor case law has known that. It has also always been the law that barrier protection is required under the law. This decision doesn’t change the law, it simply reiterates what has always already been the law. People have simply ignored the law, and I imagine they will largely continue to do so.
Businesses routinely ignore laws like this. For example, it is common knowledge that actors who appear in reality tv shows are often treated as “independent contractors” by networks–even though the networks tell them what to do, when to do it, where to show up, how to dress, what talk shows to appear on, etc etc etc. In other words, according to California case law, they are clearly employees. But networks and production companies routinely ignore the law and just treat them as independent contractors, and only change that position if a court orders them to.
Likewise here–everyone will still continue to be treated as independent contractors, paid as such, 1099’d as such, until a court actually orders them to stop.
Likewise, I imagine people will continue to film sex without protection, and I don’t see California expending a whole lot of tax dollars trying to stop that. Not unless there is a real serious HIV outbreak or something–something that really gets the public’s attention. Which, given the testing procedures already in place, is really not very likely.
When will the FSC send Karen Tynan to pasture or at least to Kink.com for a hardcore bondage, suspension and flogging scene — while getting anal from a ten inch dick? Her legal skills don’t impress me, that is for sure — at least for the types of cases she takes on. Maybe she would be better as talent but I’m not even sure about that.
Much of AB332/640 is word for word out of the OSHA 5193 statute. Now that this judge has declared that this statute does apply to the adult industry it will make its passage this year a little easier. And the previous judge ruling that it is unlikely that the first ammentment arguments of the industyr will hold up, well lets just say it dont look good for the porners.
Now here’s the kicker. Performers are going to soon discover that they can make more money suing their employers, and agents who book them to work in unsafe conditions, than they will ever make doing films,and the precedent for that will be happening soon, very soon.
Maybe, though as I’ve stated previously–I won’t rehash it here–AB332 is obviously unconstitutional on its face. 640, if I remember correctly, smartly avoided the unconstitutional language that 332 contained, but it seemed the legislature had no appetite for it. I don’t see this decision changing that.
But still, even if passed, what would those laws change? It’s already the law that barriers must be used, emergency procedures be in place, etc. The law has never been enforced, other than in the very mild way we see today. Do these laws call for a new government agency to be put into place, one that will monitor and investigate porn? If not, I don’t see anyone–not the police, not Cal-OSHA, not anyone–having any real desire to aggressively hunt down all the porn shoots going on in California on any given day.
So really, what’s changed?
It is NOT the case that porn performers have a greater chance of prevailing in a law suit today. They were always able to.