Scarlett Johansson’s Lawyer Slammed Disney for Trying to Avoid a Jury Trial for Her Breach of Contract Lawsuit

 Scarlett Johansson is fighting the fight against Disney.

Scarlett Johansson sued Disney in July, claiming the simultaneous release of Black Widow in theaters and on Disney+ cost her millions. Her contract relied on backend bonuses tied to box office success. Disney sought arbitration, but Johansson insists on a jury trial.

Disney faced criticism for its initial statement, accused of misogyny by Johansson's lawyer and industry organizations. The statement questioned the lawsuit's merit, emphasizing compliance with Johansson's contract and the film's Disney+ success.

Time’s Up, ReFrame, and Women in Film condemned Disney's "gendered character attack" on Johansson. They stated that such attacks contribute to a harmful environment for women defending their business rights.

Screen Actors Guild President Gabrielle Carteris criticized Disney for "gender-shaming" Johansson, stating that women standing up for fair pay are champions for economic justice.

This case is significant for women who may lack the resources to fight similar battles. The desire to see it play out publicly stems from the broader issue of gender bias and pay inequity.

The lawsuit highlights the clash between a celebrated actor and a corporate giant. Disney's attempt to push the dispute into arbitration sparked a publicized legal battle.

Johansson's lawyer claims Disney fears public litigation due to evidence supporting her case. The actor insists that Disney's actions violated Marvel's promise for a typical theatrical release of Black Widow.

The dispute revolves around the release strategy of Black Widow, emphasizing Johansson's financial losses due to the hybrid release model.

The public discourse surrounding the lawsuit underscores the broader challenges women face in industries, even those with considerable influence and resources.

In summary, the legal showdown between Scarlett Johansson and Disney unveils issues of gender bias, business rights, and pay equity in a high-profile industry case.