From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Home Box Office, Inc. v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
531 F. Supp. 578 (1982)
In the 1970s, cable television entered the television market. One cable company, Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) (plaintiff), mainly used freelance directors to develop its programming. The Directors Guild of America, Inc. (the guild) (defendant) allowed its members to work for HBO in the beginning without a collective-bargaining agreement in order to give HBO time to establish itself. After a number of years, the guild decided that enough time had passed and HBO ought to have a labor agreement with the guild just as the broadcast networks had. In 1977 HBO signed a contract with an actor’s union that enabled HBO to pay union members about 20 percent less than what broadcast networks paid. The guild refused to offer HBO a similar discount and insisted that HBO compensate directors even more than the networks did because the guild believed cable television would be more lucrative. HBO refused to pay directors more than the networks paid. As a result, the guild no longer allowed its members to work for HBO. HBO planned to hire directors from various nations, but the guild complained to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. HBO then filed suit claiming that the guild had violated antitrust laws. The guild responded that its actions were exempt from antitrust liability. The case went to trial, and a key question for the district court related to the status of directors who worked in different capacities. Some directors worked as freelancers rather than as employees. Some directors worked in dual capacities. For example, director-producers were independent contractors, and director-packagers were entrepreneurs. Despite this, the guild argued that these independent contractors and entrepreneurs should be subject to collective bargaining.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sofaer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.