A morality clause is a clause within an employment contract that prevents the worker from discrediting the employer or that goes against the employer`s ethics. The #MeToo and Time`s Up Movements play an important role in forcing a number of industries, including Hollywood, to recognize and be responsible for behaviour. In the meantime, film studios, networks and producers have begun to reconsider the use of moralization clauses to prevent wrongdoing and provide them with some ways to protect their investments.  Kressler, top score 9, at 249; See z.B. What a metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Co., 254 Cal. Rptr. 645, 655 (Ct. App. 1988) (search for a talent agreement with specific obligations between an actor and a studio as a working relationship), rev`d for other reasons, 769 P.2d 932 (Cal. 1989); Berkofsky-Barret Prods., Inc., 260 Cal. Rptr. to 1072 (on the grounds that the court « does not look into . .
. [the] Members of the employment chain »). Moral clauses are here to stay, and will probably be more and more robust in favour of the employer, as more incidents are brought to the fore by the public. It is important to find out when they come into play and determine the conditions of competition, but to understand that if you trigger one, you may already be deep. Even at the time of development, the clauses are very different. The main problem is the type of transgression that is covered by the clause. While some clauses only protect against crimes, crimes or convictions, others are comprehensive enough to encompass any behaviour that causes negative moral feelings. Charlie Sheen`s weak « moral turpitude » clause is a prime example and the strong clause of Williams` contract is the last. Some agreements are so broad that even alleged offences that turn out to be false or behaviours that can be considered a « violation » can trigger the clause.  If a person has done something in the past that could fall into the categories of conduct contained in the clause, the morality clause may be triggered if past conduct is published during the term of the contract.  Corrective measures may also vary with respect to the termination of the contract and/or the right to withdraw or withhold credits.
 As a result, clauses may vary considerably depending on their strength due to variations in wording. Despite differences of opinion on morality in different sectors, public opinion has focused more on comments than on measures. Comments that are homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic or sympathetic to terrorism have provoked strong public reactions. For example, after admitting that racist schemes had been used in a depot, The Food Network brought down chef Paula Deen and a host of sponsors.  Deens`s image has not yet recovered from the incident, and it recently sparked a new controversy for a racist social media post.  Meanwhile, offensive public actions seem to have much less impact. Lindsay Lohan, infamous for her drug use, car accidents and arrests for driving under the influence, has taken his controversial image by campaigning for car insurance during the Superbowl.  Similarly, the public was largely ambivalent toward Florida state quarterback Jameis Winston, despite public accusations of rape against him. In fact, most of the news around the NFL is hopefully focusing on the « risk » of conceiving it rather than disapproving of its actions.  The clauses can, to a large extent, rely on the awarding and awarding entities concerned, as well as on the context of the agreement.  The default penalty for breaching a New York and California Law clause, in which clauses are frequently invoked, is termination of the contract.  The morality clause generally allows the employer to take disciplinary action until the termination of the employment relationship against the employee in the event of a breach of the clause.