LATATA Responds to AHF Complaint to Department of Industrial Relations

Check out our advertisers, and

Follow Gene Ross at [email protected]; Follow AdultFYI at [email protected]

LOS ANGELES — from – The Licensed Adult Talent Agency Trade Association (LATATA) and its legal team on Monday announced they are preparing to contest what they call “the unmerited allegations made in a letter from AHF dated Feb. 12, 2013, to the Department of Industrial Relations, should such letter cause DIR to initiate a second investigation.”

The same complaint and resulting investigation in 2010, which was dismissed, was based upon an adult industry talent agency’s alleged violation of section 1700.33 of the California Labor Code.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation has apparently filed numerous complaints against adult talent agencies, according to LATATA. AHF claims that adult talent agents are sending performers into unsafe work places and violating the law as a result.

“This looks like another attempt to initiate one of the many frivolous lawsuits a non-profit corporation has been pursuing against the adult industry,” said LATATA attorney Karen Tynan.

“A similar action was taken in 2010. Adult industry talent agents were investigated on these same spurious allegations and nothing was found.”

LATATA member and LA Direct Models owner, Derek Hay, remarked, “This is a waste of time and effort on the part of the state regulators who are again being goaded into an action by a self-serving organization bent on using the State of California’s slim resources to impose its limited views and further its own agenda. It’s also a waste of the adult industry’s resources to fight this ill-conceived intrusion of our daily business, which is not supported by the actors who perform in the industry.”

Hay continued, “Such an investigation is not supported by any actors involved in the production of adult movies, who know the testing regimen of the industry to be both rigorous and effective. Instead it is spearheaded solely and completely by a third-party interest uninvolved in the adult film industry and quite vocal and public in its ‘anti adult industry stance and position.’”

Hay noted, “Whilst the State has been prompted by a biased third party to investigate such spurious claims for a second time, it has not once sought to bring to an end to, or assist in any way, in ending, the illegal operations of a large number of ‘unlicensed agents.’ Meanwhile, LATATA continues to bring civil suits against unlicensed agents operating in the adult industry in an effort to compel their compliance with California law and regulatory requirements.

“One can only wonder the reasoning behind litigating such highly debatable and subjective claims with licensed agents as alleged by AHF, while the State permits and stands idle against those unlicensed entities, lacking even the most basic and necessary license, bond and workers compensation insurance, fundamentally required, even to conduct business in the first instance.”

Section 1700.33 of the California Labor Code states, “No talent agency shall send or cause to be sent, any artist to any place where the health, safety, or welfare of the artist could be adversely affected, the character of which place the talent agency could have ascertained upon reasonable inquiry.”

LATATA rejects the interpretation that the daily operations of professional adult film production constitute a “place where the health, safety, or welfare of the artist could be adversely affected.” Attorneys for the State of California investigated the same complaints in 2010 and agreed, LATATA said.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply