Models Pedaru, Jagodzinska and Cywinska sue Next Management

[The_Ida]

This is probably just a counter-suit to get Next to drop its suit though.

A counter-suit to Next's counter-suit against Ford? Hardly. Why would these three girls put their names on the line for some Ford/Next business that they could care less about?

 

[holaloha]

Wow, this is unfortunate if true

 

[Fontenrose]

A counter-suit to Next's counter-suit against Ford? Hardly. Why would these three girls put their names on the line for some Ford/Next business that they could care less about?

Counter-suits are very common in business and I just assumed that Ford would pay for it, but upon thinking more, I think that this issue of models being ripped off is a can of worms that no agency would like to see opened.

 

[The_Ida]

^Yep

 

[Kimkhuu]

well it's not a compensation, it's allegedly their money, so.. that's who they are, the owners of that money.

I can't wait for the 'models should just bow and be grateful' argument.. people are so retro when it comes to their business.. cause it is a business for them too the moment they sign a contract. a simple concept, and yes, they're capitalising on their faces, other people do it on their brain and still get paid their share.. don't know how one's more deserving than the other. /rant.

It's not cause you're rich and famous that you should not have rights!
Well said MulletProof.

 

[model_mom]

Who would have thought?

 

[OlgaMaria]

Interesting article from jezebel.com

Three high-profile models have sued their former agency, Next, for allegedly stealing $750,000 of their earnings. And the trio contend that the shady dealings are a pattern of conduct for Next. They want the agency to open its books.

The Polish models Anna Jagodzinska and Anne Aleksandra Cywinska, together with the Estonian Karmen Pedaru, are accusing Next of failing to pay them money they were owed, and of misappropriating those funds for Next's own use. Jagodzinska (center) and Pedaru (right) are extremely successful models; between them, they have graced the covers of American Vogue, Italian Vogue, Australian Vogue, and Japanese Vogue, walked for Chanel, Givenchy, and Valentino couture, and been the faces of brands including Oscar de la Renta, David Yurman, Prada, Tom Ford, and Bottega Veneta. Cywinska (left), who works under the name Ania, has a less high-profile career, but she has modeled successfully in New York, Spain, Australia, and Germany, and her clients have recently included Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Full disclosure: when I modeled, Next was my agency in New York and in Los Angeles. I have met Jagodzinska and Cywinska socially. Cywinska was the room-mate of a friend when both were tenants in one of Next's models' apartments. When I left Next, in the summer of 2009, Next paid me my outstanding earnings in full and in a manner I considered timely.

Pedaru, Jagodzinska, and Cywinska all left Next in April of 2010. Their lawsuit, a copy of which I obtained, alleges that when they switched agencies, each had earnings left outstanding, including some payments still pending from jobs going back to mid-2009, and that in the ensuing months, Next has flatly refused to pay up. That would be a little like if you quit your job the day before your pay period ended, only to find that your former employer felt entitled to keep your last paycheck.

Pedaru claims in the suit that she is owed "an amount not presently ascertainable, but believed to exceed $400,000." Jagodzinska estimates the earnings Next withheld at $320,000. Cywinska says she is owed $30,000. Each woman is seeking punitive damages of $1 million.

When the three models broke with Next and switched to the competing agency Ford, Next sued Ford for allegedly offering them unlawful enticements to break their contracts. That lawsuit is ongoing. In their suit, Jagodzinska, Pedaru, and Cywinska argue that they never would have left Next had it honored their contracts by paying them their money on time in the first place.

Modeling agencies do not employ models — models are independent contractors who are paid by their clients. However, agencies hold significant control, financial and otherwise, over the women and men they represent. Agencies give models notice of castings, handle models' resulting bookings and invoice their clients, then agencies disburse those earnings to models, less fees and expenses. Models are dependent on agencies to find work. Agency contracts typically give agencies a monopoly on managing a given model's image in a given geographical area, and in New York, agencies generally take 20% of each model's earnings, plus any management expenses the agency says it has incurred, and often plus an additional 20% booking fee charged to the client. (Sometimes surprisingly large deductions for things like photocopying, messenger services, and for being on the agency website are common, even at high-profile agencies.)

In addition, if a model passing through town needs accommodation, agencies are generally only too happy to make the necessary arrangements — generally by booking her a berth in one of the apartments they maintain for the purpose. And, of course, charging her for the privilege. One month in New York sharing an agency 1-bedroom with two other girls might cost a model $2,000. Those costs and fees are not really negotiable. If your account says the agency spent $178.84 on Fed-Ex on your behalf during the month of May, you just have to eat it, because they certainly aren't going to show you a receipt. If these costs incurred push your agency account into the red, then congratulations: you now have what's known as agency debt. Most models go in and out of debt to their agencies frequently during their careers, often racking up thousands of dollars worth of debt in a competitive market like New York or Paris, only to be sent by their agencies to work it off in less-fashionable but more lucrative markets like Germany and Australia. Rinse and repeat.

Modeling industry accounting can be quite opaque, from the model's perspective. You have to trust your agency completely with all of your financial affairs — "trust" being the operative word, because not much protects you, as an independent contractor in a largely unregulated labor market. Although a model should technically be allowed to request to see her agency account at any time, the typical modeling contract pre-authorizes the agency to make whatever deductions it feels necessary without seeking any model's consent. And while expenses are typically debited from a model's account as soon as they are incurred, payments are only credited when they are received from clients — which can take months, or never happen at all. It is not uncommon for an agency to refuse take measures against deadbeat clients; to an agency, the production house or brand that stiffed that one girl over that one job may represent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bookings per annum for dozens of other girls. The potential cost of that one model leaving the agency — if she even did leave — is almost always lower than the potential cost of displeasing that production house or brand. It is very, very common for models to experience difficulties recovering money that is owed them after leaving an agency; it is rare, however, for models to litigate over such instances of apparent theft.

Most unusually, Pedaru, Jagodzinska, and Cwyinska's lawsuit alleges that Next's financial misconduct was so egregious and so systematic that other models are very likely to have experienced similar pilfering of their earnings. The three plaintiffs are suing in part to force Next to open its books to allow the court to examine its alleged "willful...pattern of and course of conduct of withholding compensation from models." These three women say they have reason to believe that Next's breach of fiduciary duty "spans many years" and affects many other victims. If the judge allows that to happen, this could prove to be a very interesting lawsuit, indeed.

 

[oversharer]

^ Wow! Go girls! This is so brave of them. I think it is HIGH TIME that these issues are addressed, regardless if every single sentence of what these three models has said is true. There is some nasty, nasty stuff that goes on in this industry that could be fixed with proper regulations and controls that favor the underdogs as with any labor market. But then, most big wigs go a little pale (or red with anger) if you bring up a union for the models.

 

[masquerade]

$1 million compensation? Who do they think they are?

Employees that want their fair wages, that's who they think they are.

Seriously, just because they are models doesn't mean they aren't owed fair wages. And just because it is a high amount doesn't mean its not fair compensation for the work they performed. If that is what they were to be paid, then that is what they were to be paid and Next shouldn't be holding it as some sort of blackmail.

Whether it's 30 bucks or 300,000 dollars, that is their money and they have a right to claim it.

 

[myran]

^ He's talking about the compensation claims, though. Each of them seek $1 million in punitive damages.

That's just standard procedure, though, I guess.

But it's interesting to read the reactions in this thread... the "go girls!" attitude is very naive imo.

 

[model_mom]

and that would be because....

A....you know how powerful the people who run this business are.... and that all their gophers are not going to rat on them for fear of losing their paycheck....or being black listed....but bravo for them for taking a stand even if it's all shoved under the carpet like everything else that's corrupt in the fashion industry......

B....their former agency is going to rush forward with a 'settlement' and everyone involved is going to play nice again.

 

[masquerade]

IA with model-mom on the risk they are taking to their careers by this suit. Not to mention that if it isn't settled quickly and quietly it can end up very long and drawn out. Lawyers aren't cheap.

 

[Echoes]

If your account says the agency spent $178.84 on Fed-Ex on your behalf during the month of May, you just have to eat it, because they certainly aren't going to show you a receipt.

You have to trust your agency completely with all of your financial affairs — "trust" being the operative word, because not much protects you, as an independent contractor in a largely unregulated labor market. Although a model should technically be allowed to request to see her agency account at any time, the typical modeling contract pre-authorizes the agency to make whatever deductions it feels necessary without seeking any model's consent.

Why would anybody sign a contract like that?

Why hasn't the New York Attorney General banned contracts like that?

 

[aynoray]

^ agreed. There should be organizations or laws that protect models imo

 

[oversharer]

They should have a union, is what they should have.

 

[dansity]

They should have a union, is what they should have.

Agreed! New girls come into the industry regularly, and it might have happened to many other models besides the 3 of them. Perhaps many are unwilling to speak out in fear of losing their jobs and sent home with nothing. I am keeping my fingers crossed that if Karmen loses the case, it wont have repurcussions on her career.

 

[The_Ida]

They should have a union, is what they should have.

Danish models actually have a union. But OK, we practically invented unions and associations

 

[Squizree]

Don't unions generally cause more trouble than what they're worth? I think I agree more with what Echoes said about the Attorney General banning gutsy contracts.

 

[The_Ida]

Don't unions generally cause more trouble than what they're worth? I think I agree more with what Echoes said about the Attorney General banning gutsy contracts.

Unions is the reason we have some of the highest wages in the world in Denmark

The Danish models use their union a lot - they have courses on self-esteem, they talk about weight issues, about how to handle school and stress and so on.

 

[Squizree]

^ I'm probably biased then, because the unions we have here do nothing but annoy the sh!t out of employers and companies and generally lead to nowhere.