Melissa Errico Fired From PASSION? — Page 4

Errico seems a fascinating, complicated, talented woman. And she can write!

Trying to restrain any criticism on my part, since I don’t know the whole situation. But I think the part that makes the most sense to me in terms of CSC needing to let her go was the uncertainty of when she would be back causing them not being able to announce it ahead of time (and causing many patrons asking for their money back).

I have no idea if there are any laws on this, but is she allowed to post her contract, signed or not?

Whatever way you look at it, her blog makes for an interesting read to see one point of view. Intrigued to see read the next section.

The blog post is bizarre and makes Errico look unhinged and, frankly, dumb (considering she is mute for her story, that seems appropriate). She is not a greenhorn- she's worked in the business for two decades- and pleads ignorance of knowledge of contracts?

This creative writing experiment will, in time, prove to have done more harm to Errico's career than her vocal issues. It is being passed around the theatre community, from office to office- and will certainly not provide people with a compelling reason ever to hire her.

---

She is making a public case. It is fair game for assessment. End of story.

---

Someone in a Tree -- see Kad's latest response. It seems you are really mixing this up with the Pascal and Tveit scenarios. This is commenting on a two sided issue, not bashing a performer. Chill.

She "was like a magnet with no destination."

This is why people shouldn't write without editors.

---

"Maggot?"

"...magnet.."

"Christ, I thought you said maggot."

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 08:54 PM

Okay, just read Blog 5 and I'll concede: she's really dragging this out.

But that's a literary criticism, not a withdrawal of sympathy.

4. That's not the point and you know it. The implication was that only a sociopath would fail to take Errico's side. Naming names is therefore immaterial, no?

Gaveston:
Errico is GROSSLY misinformed about the contract nonsense. I can't believe I didn't catch it till now (though her blog is not... quite so coherent).

Errico wrote this:
"So, what exactly was Patrick trying to say outside on the street? He said that the producers at Classic Stage had a legal right to fire me. (There is a team of leadership there, I don’t know who really is the producer. That doesn’t matter to this story. Please focus beyond fault, which is not my aim.) My husband went on, “There is a clause in their off-Broadway contract that if an actor misses 10 days of work, the actor or the producer has the right to terminate.” "



She appears to have misunderstood her husband's meaning when saying "contract"- or her husband has misunderstood the situation.


There's no specific clause in re: illness in HER contract. There's a clause in the Equity status the theatre holds. CSC is an Off-Broadway house, thereby it follows those rules. And those rules, very clearly in the Off-Broadway Equity Rulebook, state:

"(B)During Performances.
If the Actor cannot perform on account of illness, injury (other than an injury as specified in Rule 33, INJURY AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE) or any other valid reason, then the Actor shall not be entitled to any salary for the time during which said services shall not for such reason or reasons be rendered. Should the foregoing condition continue for a period of 10 calendar days or more, either party may terminate said
contract and the Producer shall pay for all services to the effective date of termination."


The contract that Errico was to sign clearly states in section 5 that the Equity Rules become PART of the contract. By signing the contract, the performer and the theatre are both agreeing to and accepting the Equity rules.

She missed more than ten days, yes? If so, CSC had every right to fire her. They were operating under the belief she had signed the contract, because why wouldn't they? She's a seasoned performer who should know this.

---

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 09:26 PM

Thank you, Kad. I figured there was more to the "contract" than the few pages she posted. (Not that she was necessarily being disingenuous; she doesn't seem very savvy about the business side of things.)

(I don't think the absence of her signature would mean much if she tried to take the case to arbitration, do you? She and the theater company functioned AS IF a duly signed contract were in place. It's sloppy on both parts, but not fatal.)

It appears management gave her 18 days, nearly twice what they were required to do.

And, anyway, now that her effin' blog has shown up uninvited on my Facebook feed, I've changed my mind and withdrawn all my compassion. (Not really.)

Um, maybe I was joking.

And a decent person wouldn't promise to tell us what happened on Sunday Day 18 then leave us hanging in Blog 5.


I love her obsessive numbering of days and blogs.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 09:44 PM