T. J. Holmes, left, and Amy Robach arrive at the iHeartRadio Jingle Ball on Friday, Dec. 8, 2023, at Madison Square Garden in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)
A little over a year ago, reports emerged of a relationship between Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes, former co-hosts of the ABC News daytime talk show GMA3, much to the shock of their colleagues, friends, and those in the news industry as a whole. At the time, many believed the relationship began as a shocking affair, considering Robach and Holmes were still both legally married to other people when all of this became public. Despite this, Robach and Holmes insisted they had been separated from their former spouses at the time the relationship began and were initiating plans to become officially divorced when the news broke.
Regardless of the actual timeline, ABC News’ president Kim Godwin announced the anchors would be taking a break from their posts, while an internal review got underway to determine whether any portions of Robach and Holmes’ respective contracts were broken as a result of the relationship. By January 2023, it was announced that both anchors would be leaving their jobs at ABC, after a spokesperson for the network stated “we all agreed it’s best for everyone that they move on from ABC News,” with the channel’s president Kim Godwin reportedly internally deeming the romance a “distraction.”
It was no question that by 2023, the anchors who had become known to millions across America as the people delivering the news now became the two most famous subjects of the constant coverage and reporting.
Earlier this month, Robach and Holmes launched a podcast called “Amy & T.J.,” in which they denied they had an affair, stating: that “everyone else thought we were being outed as adulterers, being outed as cheating on our spouses, which wasn’t the case.”
While the situation regarding ABC News, Robach, and Holmes garnered plenty of headlines, it also sparked a wider question in both the news and legal industries, primarily around morality clauses in talent contracts and how much power they should ultimately yield.
In the past few years, many people looked to morality clauses in contracts of widely known public figures for guidance as to how to handle any allegations of impropriety or wrongful conduct. Particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement, morality clauses dictated whether an individual accused of inappropriate behavior should be terminated, eligible for a severance or settlement payment, or face other repercussions.
Now, while many praise the presence of morality clauses in order to deter bad behavior by talent, others have deemed such clauses overbroad and problematic, particularly for high-profile individuals looking to finalize deals with major studios and entertainment companies.
Robach and Holmes’ exit from ABC proved how far the effect of morality clauses can reach, and now many are wondering whether that impact will continue what the future holds for public figures, major entertainment studios, and the legal community at large.
The emergence and rise of the ‘morality clause’
To start, just what are morality clauses and where did they come from? Basically, they are provisions that are present in entertainment and talent contracts, employment agreements, and endorsement deals that outline the terms of how an individual is supposed to behave, usually for the company they are working for. Most clauses are activated if the individual engages in behavior that is improper or triggers keywords such as “public disrepute, humiliation, contempt, scandal or ridicule,” or anything that makes the overall company’s reputation suffer.
Morality clauses actually first surfaced as early as the 1920s, but began gaining steam in the 1940s and 1950s, being used as a deterrent against directors or actors involved in communist activities during the “Red Scare.” In 1947, 10 members of the film industry known as the “Hollywood Ten” received jail sentences and were banned from working for major studios in town due their alleged ties to the communist party. After their release, the members had been essentially blacklisted from working in Hollywood, and the industry — seeing that morality clauses were enforceable in court — used them as a tool to keep their talent in line.
Over the years, morality clauses have dictated the fate of athletes, models, and actors who have found themselves embroiled in a scandal, with many of them losing out on major endorsements, brand deals, and even long-standing employment contracts. By 2018, countless public figures were let go by their employers via morality clauses in the wake of sexual harassment and assault allegations and in the years since, the industry has seen the likes of Lori Laughlin, Roseanne Barr, and even social media influencers lose out on opportunities, all purportedly through morality clauses.
Pros and cons
While it is evident that morality clauses are still heavily at play, particularly in the entertainment and news industries, there are still many figures who are both for and against using them. Particularly, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) have banned clauses in guild member agreements for decades, while many studios, networks, and financiers favor such clauses, as it not only keeps key talent players in check, but also preserves the overall reputation of their projects.
In contrast, many reporters, anchors, and other entertainers are against morality clauses, as they provide less job security and the sometimes ambiguous terms such as “moral turpitude” can make it unclear what behavior is prohibited and what is not.
Either way, legal experts have expressed both the upsides and downsides of morality provisions. On the pro side, such clauses ensure that the talent hired by family-friendly entities such as Disney or ABC act in comportment with such values and serve as a deterrent for poor behavior. In terms of the cons, while directors and writers are often protected from such clauses, there is no guild protection for actors specifically and moreover, the way morality clauses are purposely drafted allow for a gray area, which leaves great discretion to networks as to whether they have been broken or not.
Romance and reality: The role morality clauses play in office romances
The ambiguity in morality clauses also begs the more specific question: exactly what type of conduct between colleagues is prohibited and what is not?
According to some, unless any employee handbooks or policies say otherwise, many morality clauses do not explicitly prohibit colleagues entering into a personal relationship with one another, unless such a relationship causes a scandal. It is difficult to provide a concrete answer to these questions unless the clause in question is published, yet often times — especially when dealing with a high-profile case or known individuals like this — these contracts are often not made available to the greater public.
Further, while many relationships between colleagues in the post-#MeToo movement have garnered controversy, particularly if there was an imbalance of power or if the relationship was between a boss and a subordinate, one could argue that the scandal with Robach and Holmes should have been relatively minor. After all, they were both of a similar age and were on the same level as co-anchors, in terms of corporate seniority. To many, a relationship between two consenting adults who were in the process of ending their respective marriages and who were still performing their job duties should not have triggered any action from their employer.
Yet on the other hand, some legal experts say the truth of a timeline does not matter, and if a situation governed by a morality clause governs controversy, then consequences are bound to happen. Even though Robach and Holmes adamantly denied they had been cheating on their spouses at the time, the press coverage of their relationship still dominated the headlines, and the public quickly latched onto the narrative that this was a full-blown scandalous affair, rather than a mature relationship. Many have argued that Robach and Holmes’ termination from ABC was due in part because of the frenzied press coverage and public reaction.
Each employer varies when it comes to how to decipher a morality clause, but the major legal consensus seems to be that if any personal relationship causes a company scandal, public backlash, or ridicule, then anyone subject to such clauses could be fair game. Either way, morality clauses have been around for nearly a century and it seems certain they will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
