kip pardue found 'guilty of serious misconduct' and fined $6000 by sag



  • it’s been roughly one year since sarah scott went to the screen actors guild to report sexual harassment on set. she went to the union just days after an incident with kip pardue, her costar in an independent television pilot, in which she alleged he had forced her to touch his penis during a sex scene and later masturbated in front of her in a dressing room in may 2018.

  • filing her account with sag seemed like her best recourse. she didn’t want money from pardue, so a lawsuit seemed costly and time-consuming. and though she filed a police report about the may 2018 incident, she told the authorities she wasn’t interested in pressing charges. instead, she wanted to focus on the union — the closest thing scott felt there was to human resources in hollywood — and, in hopes of making change within the industry, have it weigh in on what she said happened.

  • following a private hearing in front of the union’s disciplinary committee on march 20th, the union ruled that pardue was “guilty of serious misconduct in violation” of the sag-aftra constitution. in the notice of the decision, which was addressed to pardue but copied to scott, told the actor the sag committee “censures and admonishes you for this inappropriate and unprofessional conduct.” as a result of his behavior, which the union said was “inconsistent” with its code of conduct on sexual harassment, pardue was fined $6,000. however, the union said, if he took an online workplace sexual harassment training module within 90 days, he would pay sag $3,000. (the fine will be deposited into the union’s general treasury.)


    • scott’s case offers rare insight into sag’s disciplinary process, which is typically used as a way to adjudicate charges of discrimination, sexual harassment or nonunion work that violates the union’s constitution or membership regulations.

    • all of which leaves scott feeling ambivalent about how her case was handled, saying "overall, i’m ok with it, but it’s a weird feeling. i don’t know if i’m supposed to feel good about the punishment or not...i would have liked to have seen a couple of years’ suspension, but this is a step in the right direction. what was the most important for me was that others who come forward in the future know that the union is willing to take these complaints seriously and create a space where they can be heard.”


      • through his lawyer, shepard kopp, pardue declined to answer questions about the hearing, but his representative said the actor had “never engaged in any nonconsensual behavior,” but during the march disciplinary hearing, another actress came forward with similar claims of harassment against pardue.


      a few of the celebrity reactions are below:



    • because the proceedings are confidential, the outcome of the member-to-member hearings doesn’t always have visible effects outside union headquarters. though pardue, has been reprimanded and penalized by the guild, it remains to be seen whether that judgment will have any practical effect on his career.



    • sources 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

      so he was found guilty of engaging in the same behavior as several high profile men before him, which was widely reported and still regularly referenced--and he chose not to take the online sexual harassment training course, apparently, since his fine was $6000 instead of $3000. i just...


      thanks to zibbydoo324 for the assist on this post, i wouldn't have made it without your help.
      • Current Mood: quizzical
      • Current Music: "summer is over" [rework], anoraak