January 29, 2020
The Executive Committee of the Board
The Recording Academy
3030 Olympic Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90404n.
Re: Transpareney and Accountability
Dear Executive Committee:
am writing to call for transparency and accountability.
On January 16, 2020, the Recording Academy summarily put me on administrative leave and
leaked that information to the press, along with a statement that I was under investigation for
misconduct. Then, on January 20, 2020, the Academy issued a letter (leaked to the press) falsely
insinuating that I extorted the Academy. The letter also outrageously complained about “leaks”
regarding this matter even though it was the Academy that decided to make this matter public.
‘The following day, after I filed my EEOC Charge, the Academy accused me in the media of only
raising concerns after a complaint was made against me. The Academy knew that this statement
was false. The Academy also falsely asserted that the Grammys were being “stolen” by me. The
Academy stated that it would work to “resolve this matter as quickly as possible,” but instead, in
the days that followed, Board Chair Harvey Mason, Jr. called multiple high-profile artists to
disparage me.
‘The Academy intentionally brought this dispute to the public’s attention, and I am asking you to
agree to let the public and music industry access the legal proceedings to come in this case. 1
have nothing to hide. The public and the music industry have the right to know what is going on
behind closed doors at the Academy.
Even putting aside the Academy’s conduct to date, as a public not-for-profit and a charitable
organization, the Academy has an obligation to conduct itself transparently. However, as you
likely know, at the time I agreed to become CEO and President of the Academy, I was required
to agree to “arbitrate” any and all disputes between myself and the Academy. Arbitration is
purportedly a quasi-judicial process through which disputes that would otherwise be resolved by
a judge and jury are instead decided by a single “arbitrator.” Arbitration is also secret and
confidential.
Iam calling upon the Academy to voluntarily release me from the arbitration agreement. The
public is not permitted to access or even learn about what is happening during the arbitration
process. Thus, to the extent that the Academy is successful in forcing me to arbitrate my claims,
it will simultaneously be denying the music industry and the public at large information
concerning the issues raised in my EEOC Charge, including, among other things, discrimination,
wasteful spending, sexual harassment, self-dealing, conflicts of interest and irregularities in the
Grammys voting process. Clearly the public cannot come to a conclusion if itis denied access to
the evidence. While I understand that it might be in your interest to keep the evidence andExecutive Committee
January 29, 2020
Page 2
proceedings behind closed doors, the public and the industry have a right to know what is going
on in the Academy, which is a “public” not-for-profit organization,
In addition to being secret and confidential, it is no secret that forced arbitration presents a
barrier to justice for victims of harassment, discrimination and other misconduct. Forced
arbitration takes away a victim’s right to a trial by a jury of her peers, and at the same time
provides protection for perpetrators of misconduct. This double-edged sword perpetuates
misconduct in the workplace and allows corporate entities — which are universally the “client” of
the arbitrator in the employment context — to sweep unlawful conduct under the rug.
Many companies, including Facebook, Uber, Microsoft, Google and Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, among others, are voluntarily doing away with forced arbitration in a variety of
circumstances. These measures are being taken simply in recognition that forced arbitration is,
immoral, contrary to all notions of justice and counterproductive to remedying sexual
misconduct. Indeed, when Microsoft eliminated forced arbitration for sexual harassment
victims, it issued the following statement: “The silencing of people’s voices has clearly had an
impact in perpetuating sexual harassment.”
‘The media has also reported on the damaging impact that forced arbitration has on victims of
unlawful workplace conduct. The New York Times, in “/n Arbitration, a Privatization of the
Judicial System” by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, accurately reported that in
arbitration “rules tend to favor businesses, and judges and juries have been replaced by
arbitrators who commonly consider the companies their clients.” In the same article, quoting law
professor Myriam Gilles, the New York Times reported that because of the proliferation of
forced arbitration, “Americans are actively being deprived of their rights.”
In Board Chair Harvey Mason’s January 26, 2020 statement, he wrote to the membership: “We
can all be proud that we are recommitting ourselves to transparency.” Mr. Mason also wrote that
as a“leading voice in the industry” the Academy “has an obligation to be on the frontline of []
change.” Lagree. Asa leading public not-for-profit and the representative of so many
disenfranchised and underserved artists, the Academy should always lead by example and take a
stand against injustice in every form. The Academy also should alwavs stand for transparency.
That is why I am calling upon the Academy to release me and all other individuals from any and
all arbitration agreements.
Finally, the need to waive my arbitration agreement is further highlighted by the fact that the
Academy has asked me to participate in an “investigation” into my complaints. However, the
results of the investigation are a foregone conclusion because the process is completely biased
To begin, the “investigator” that has been retained by the Academy was recommended and
handpicked by Proskauer Rose, LLP. | identified Proskauer in my EEOC Charge as one of the
law firms that is “in bed” with the Academy. Indeed, Proskauer partner Chuck Ortner is
National Legal Counsel to the Academy and, according to media reports, is one of very few
individuals that are said to “largely run” the Academy and Grammys leadership. Mr. Ortner is
also on the Board of the Academy’s Museum, and his firm is plainly conflicted given theExecutive Committee
January 29, 2020
Page 3
millions that it has received and continues to receive from the Academy. Thus, we have a
situation wherein you have Proskauer tasked with hiring the investigator that will, in part,
investigate Proskauer.
To make matters worse, the attomey at Proskauer that retained the investigator ~ Anthony
Oneidi, Esq., who has worked with the investigator in the past at a mediation — actually
represented the Academy against me after I sent my December 22, 2019 email in which I
outlined the complaints that are supposedly the subject of thi tigation. Given the various
(false) statements that the Academy has made about the discussions between Mr. Oneidi and one
of my attomeys, Mr. Oncidi is actually a witness in (and should be a subject of) the investigation.
Yet, he is choosing the investigator.
In addition to the above, Mr. Oneidi’s colleague, Chuck Ortner, Esq., represented to my attomey
unequivocally that Mr. Portnow was never alleged to have raped a woman, We all know with
certainty that this is not true. Clearly, I cannot possibly trust that Proskauer’s choice of
investigator will be neutral.
As for the investigator herself, she has done approximately 1,000 investigations. She was unable
to provide us with the number of times that she has found for the employee because she claims
not to track the results. However, according to her, she is hired by the employer every single
time she does an investigation. The investigator will not produce a copy of her retainer
agreement with the Academy so that we can see how much she is being paid for her
“investigation,” and has affirmatively represented that she does not know to whom the results,
will be reported.
Tam also expected to participate in this investigation even though the investigator has denied my
request for access to all the evidence and documents that she amasses during the investigation.
In contrast, the Academy (who will be paying the investigator) will have all the evidence that is
amassed, and will be able to conceal that evidence from the public and the music industry. The
Academy also will be able to leak or otherwise disseminate whatever information it believes will
harm me, and I will have no recourse. My concerns are bolstered by the fact that the investigator
refused to indicate whether her findings will be made public or whether the Academy would
agree to waive the arbitration provision so that all future proceedings will be public.
1 want nothing more than to participate in a complete, thorough and truly independent
investigation. In fact, through my attomeys, I specifically called for such an investigation.
cannot, in good conscience, participate in an investigation rife with conflicts of interest and
obvious partiality. Thus, I am proposing that we, together, mutually select an investigator who is
independent and who would report to all parties and not just the Academy. As a publie not-for-
profit and a charitable organization, the Academy has an obligation to ensure that it acts with
impartiality and fairness in everything it does. In this case, that would mean agreeing to my
proposal to mutually select a fair and impartial investigator. At a very minimum, an investigator
retained by my counsel should be permitted to work jointly with your investigator and have fullExecutive Committee
January 29, 2020
Page 4
access to all documents, witnesses and other evidence. Please let me know if you will agree to
cither of these proposals designed to ensure faimess and transparency.
I look forward to your response.
Sincoffly,
President and Chief Executivg ficer, Recording Academy
ce: Tina Tehen, Recording Academy Task Force Chair (via email)