Connect with us

Business

Sarah Hyland, Ashley Tisdale and Molly Sims’ health journeys led them to launch ‘meaningful’ brands

Published

on

Sarah Hyland, Ashley Tisdale and Molly Sims’ health journeys led them to launch ‘meaningful’ brands

When former Disney Channel star Ashley Tisdale was in between acting jobs a decade ago, she felt she was “wasting what God gifted me, which is being creative.”

“I feel like actors are very creative people, and when we were probably all home [in 2020] and were like, ‘Okay, we gotta put the creative energy somewhere,’” she said during The Times’ virtual “art of the Hollywood side hustle” panel on Tuesday.

Tisdale, who starred in Disney’s “High School Musical” movies and TV show “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody,” is the founder of lifestyle platform Frenshe and its companion beauty and personal care line Being Frenshe. She is among a growing number of actors who have launched their own brands in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic started, and found new purpose in doing so.

Tisdale joined fellow actor-entrepreneurs Sarah Hyland and Molly Sims to discuss why they pivoted from Hollywood to create businesses inspired by their own mental and physical health experiences. Tuesday’s panel was moderated by Times columnist Amy Kaufman.

Advertisement

Frenshe got its start when Tisdale began her mental health journey. The actor, who has anxiety and depression, said she wanted to help “people feel less alone.” The wellness platform officially launched in the summer of 2020, when people were pining for personal connection amid COVID-19 lockdowns and isolation. After shuttering her Illuminate makeup line the same year, Tisdale said she was wary about re-entering the retail industry.

Years later, Tisdale said she accomplished her dream of having her own products on store shelves. “It’s been the most successful thing I’ve ever personally done … it was seeing [Frenshe] at Target that made me feel like it was a success,” she said.

Actor-model Sims was already juggling several ventures, including her Something Happy Productions and the wellness and beauty podcast “Lipstick on the Rim.” Then she added YSE Beauty to her plate in April. Sims created her line out of necessity following her personal experiences with skin conditions hyperpigmentation and melasma.

Sims, who shares three children with Netflix Films chairman Scott Stuber, said her skin issues got worse following the birth of each child. “I really had a difficult time for about five years not wanting to … go out of the house without” makeup, she revealed.

Then, in the middle of some professional pivoting, Sims decided she wanted to help fill the market with her own “truthful and transparent” skincare line. The founder and chief creative officer of YSE, Sims said her business allowed her to tap into a different, business-savvy part of her brain and turn her side hustle into a full-fledged business.

Advertisement

“Love Island USA” host and “Modern Family” star Hyland sought to make medical supplements more appetizing, so she teamed with Jenne Moore and Andrew Remlinger in 2021 as co-founder and creative director of Sourse, a line of vitamin-infused chocolates. The actor, who has been vocal about living with kidney dysplasia and spending her “entire life in hospitals,” said there was a time when she was taking 30 pills a day, including supplements to offset the side effects of her “life-saving” medication.

When the opportunity presented itself to join Sourse , Hyland said she was excited to tap into her business acumen — some of which she gained from watching “Shark Tank” on ABC.

“It was a different type of foundation in the wellness space that wasn’t really out there,” Hyland said of her “snackable” supplements.

Whether the actors’ brands started as a solution to personal problems or a way to innovate, the three panelists agreed their businesses allowed them to advance their reach on their own terms.

Hyland said she enjoys the stability of having her own brand, and not feeling pressured to take every acting opportunity that comes her way. With Sourse, she can focus on “doing something that’s really important to me and really fun,” she said.

Advertisement

“My dad’s a Shakespearean theater actor and he always taught me, ‘Take the next job. You always ride that wave,’” she recalled. “I’m just so fortunate to be able to be in a place in my career, where I can be like, ‘I don’t think I want to take that wave.’”

Sims said she enjoys spending time with her family as she works on her various endeavors, instead of uprooting them to accommodate a TV or film project far from home. The multi-hyphenate, who’s been in the public eye for nearly 30 years, said there will be times when non-entertainment ventures seem “a little bit more appealing.”

“You have to weigh where you are in your life,” she said. “Yeah, the acting is amazing, but when you’ve been in the business for so long, this over here might seem a little bit more appealing, and for me that’s where I am in my life.”

Similarly, Tisdale said she’s hitting her stride with Frenshe. The actor, who shares daughter Jupiter Iris with musician Christopher French, said she will “always” love acting but finds her non-Hollywood work more rewarding.

“I feel like I’m doing something more meaningful in my life and helping others,” she said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Terranea Resort accused of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation in lawsuit

Published

on

Terranea Resort accused of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation in lawsuit

A former marketing executive at the Terranea Resort sued the luxury establishment on Wednesday, alleging its president had made discriminatory comments towards pregnant women working at the company.

The former marketing exercutive, Chad Bustos, alleges in the lawsuit filed on Wednesday that he was fired in retaliation after he defended several female employees.

Terranea Resort and the company’s president did not respond to a request for comment about allegations in the lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Bustos said he had worked at the 560-room oceanfront resort that perches on the Palos Verdes Peninsula since 2023. He had supervised an all-female marketing team, of which three employees were young moms with children under 3, according to the complaint.

Advertisement

The lawsuit describes a meeting in February 2024, where the resort’s president, Ralph Grippo, became “visibly angry” after hearing a woman on the team planned to take maternity leave. Her announcement had come months after another employee had returned from maternity leave.

Grippo, who also is a defendant in the lawsuit, allegedly stood up, pushed his chair back and began questioning the other women in the room. The lawsuit said Grippo pointed at each woman in turn, asking, “Are you pregnant?” After each woman answered, he sat back down and the meeting continued.

After the meeting, Grippo allegedly began “scrutinizing the marketing team and nitpicking their performance,” using the resort’s security cameras to see what time they arrived to work and when they left. He told Bustos to write up the women for what he deemed to be minor infractions, but Bustos refused, according to the complaint.

At another meeting in May 2024, Grippo scolded female employees for not working hard enough, although the team was high-performing and employees worked long hours, the lawsuit said.

Grippo was reported to the human resources department by one of the women, and Bustos confirmed her claims to the department, the lawsuit said. Bustos also confronted Grippo around that time, telling him his comments were inappropriate, according to the complaint.

Advertisement

After that, Grippo refused to speak with Bustos or return his calls, the lawsuit alleged, and in August 2024, Grippo fired Bustos.

Under California law, it is illegal for employers to ask employees about medical conditions, including pregnancy.

And anti-pregnancy comments can be used as evidence of sex discrimination, said Lauren Teukolsky, the attorney representing Bustos.

Bustos, who had worked with Grippo for 11 years at another company prior to joining him at the Terranea Resort, said in an interview that he initially thought Grippo would understand his perspective because of their long-standing relationship.

Bustos said his team was “very talented and hardworking,” and the sacrifices they and others have made to raise children “should be important for everybody.”

Advertisement

Grippo had had a history of making other anti-pregnancy comments, the lawsuit alleged.

When a woman asked Grippo for a promotion, he allegedly questioned her about how she planned to balance the promotion while raising a child. He asked another woman with two children who applied for a marketing job if her work schedule was going to be a problem since she was a mom, the lawsuit said.

Grippo wrote up another pregnant employee because she came in 15 minutes late as a result of morning sickness, and questioned another pregnant employee why she had so many doctor’s appointments, the lawsuit said.

In 2017, former dishwasher and chef assistant Sandra Pezqueda sued the resort and a staffing agency after she allegedly experienced repeated sexual harassment and assault by her supervisor, who then retaliated against her by changing her work schedule after she rejected his advances.

Pezqueda received a $250,000 settlement with the company denying any wrongdoing, news reports said.

Advertisement

Then-president Terri A. Haack said in a statement to Time that the company has “a zero-tolerance policy toward harassment.”

The Terranea resort is jointly owned by JC Resorts, a company with a portfolio of resorts and golf courses based in La Jolla, and Lowe Enterprises, real estate investment firm based in Los Angeles. The companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

An Illustrated Guide to Who Really Benefits From ‘No Tax on Tips’

Published

on

An Illustrated Guide to Who Really Benefits From ‘No Tax on Tips’

There’s no question that President Trump’s proposal to stop taxing tips has broad appeal. It’s popular in polling, lawmakers in both parties support it, and now a version of the idea is on its way to becoming law.

But the effect of the policy would actually be quite narrow. About 3 percent of American workers receive tips, but about a third of those employees would not see a gain from the change.

Advertisement

That’s because of the way Republicans structured the policy in the tax legislation they passed through the House recently. Here’s who would benefit under their plan — and who wouldn’t.

The proposal would leave out workers who are not tipped.

Advertisement

The tax break is good news for people in industries like dining, where tips are a big part of worker pay. But it also means that two employees making the same amount, one a bartender and one a retail salesperson, could soon face very different tax bills.

Advertisement

These two workers each make $40,000, but the tipped worker would owe a lot less in taxes.

Note: Potential additional effects of tax credits or other less common deductions are not included.

Advertisement

The tax exemption would create a huge incentive for more people to try to earn tips. The Republican legislation lays out some ground rules, tasking the Treasury Department to limit the tax break to jobs in which workers have traditionally received tips. This could become the subject of intense lobbying, as companies try to convince the government that their employees deserve the tax break. Uber and DoorDash have already pushed to make sure their drivers can qualify for tax-free tips.

Many of the lowest-earning tipped workers wouldn’t benefit much, or at all.

Advertisement

Another obstacle to benefiting from the tax break is the way income is taxed in America. In general, before they pay taxes, Americans subtract deductions from their income, and then the government assesses tax on that smaller amount of money.

Everyone can take the standard deduction, which would be worth $16,000 for individuals and $32,000 for married couples this year under the Republican tax bill. “No tax on tips” would take the form of a deduction people can claim on top of the standard deduction, shrinking their taxable income even more.

But for a tipped worker who doesn’t make much more than the standard deduction — say a college student who waits tables over the summer — the ability to claim an additional deduction would not generate much in tax savings. Someone making less than the standard deduction would have no taxable income to begin with.

Advertisement

The policy would save this low-wage waiter a small amount.

Advertisement

Note: Potential additional effects of tax credits or other less common deductions are not included.

Advertisement

It’s important to note that the tips exemption applies only to the federal income tax. Workers would still owe payroll taxes, like the 6.2 percent Social Security tax, on their tipped income. They may also owe state income taxes on their tips.

For many low-income Americans, payroll taxes, rather than the income tax, are the biggest taxes they pay. Roughly 37 percent of tipped workers already don’t owe any federal income tax, according to an estimate from the Budget Lab at Yale.

Others wouldn’t gain because other benefits already eliminate their tax burden.

Advertisement

There are other tax breaks that could eliminate a worker’s tax liability before “no tax on tips” comes into the picture. For example, a full-time Uber or Lyft driver who can take advantage of the mileage deduction, which increases with every mile driven, may not have much use for another tax break.

Advertisement

The policy wouldn’t make a difference for this ride-share driver.

Advertisement

Note: Business deductions included are for qualified business income and business use of a car. The amounts differ under a “no tax on tips” policy because the deductions would interact. Potential additional effects of tax credits or other less common deductions are not included.

An exception to this would be tax benefits that are “refundable.” These are tax credits, like the earned- income tax credit, that give money to Americans even if they don’t owe anything in income tax. So these tax credits can become cash payments to low-income Americans. Because of that, workers could conceivably use the tips deduction to reduce their tax bills to zero and still receive the same benefit from a refundable tax credit.

The more money someone makes, the bigger the benefit.

Advertisement

The deduction would be most meaningful for those who make enough to owe a fair amount in income taxes. A typical tax cut for someone earning enough to benefit from the plan could be worth roughly $1,800.

Advertisement

This hairdresser would save the typical amount among those who would benefit.

Advertisement

Note: Potential additional effects of tax credits or other less common deductions are not included.

This dynamic is a microcosm of how cuts to income taxes often work: The more money you make, the more you pay in tax and therefore the more you save from a tax cut. In this case, though, your benefit would depend both on how much you make and what share of your income comes in the form of tips.

Advertisement

This Las Vegas blackjack dealer would save a lot based on his significant tips.

Advertisement

Note: Potential additional effects of tax credits or other less common deductions are not included. Figures are rounded.

This would be true up to a point. The Republican legislation would bar tipped workers making more than $160,000 from claiming the break. (That level would apply for this year and increase over time.)

Advertisement

The cut-off is a stark one. A tipped worker making $160,001 would, under the bill, receive nothing, potentially encouraging people to try to lower their earnings to claim the tax break. Making that extra dollar could mean thousands in additional taxes.

“No tax on tips” could end up as a short-lived experiment. In the House-passed bill, the policy would last only through 2028, though the legislation could change in the Senate.

Many tax-policy experts are rooting for the demise of the deduction, which they see as another potential hole in a tax system so strewn with carve-outs that it is often compared to Swiss cheese. In general, they would prefer a system that charges roughly the same tax on workers with roughly the same earnings, rather than creating a tax advantage for certain types of work.

Advertisement

“It’s the exact opposite of the general principles that tax policy purists advocate for,” said Joseph Rosenberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Advertisement

About the data

Advertisement

Illustrated examples were constructed using data from a summary of the House Republican bill (proposed tips policy, standard deductions and tax rates); the Bureau of Labor Statistics (typical wages by occupation); companies and industry groups (estimated typical tip shares); and analyses from the Budget Lab at Yale and the Tax Policy Center (distributional effects of the policy). Workers in all examples have a single tax-filing status.

Continue Reading

Business

California Senate passes bill that aims to make AI chatbots safer

Published

on

California Senate passes bill that aims to make AI chatbots safer

California lawmakers on Tuesday moved one step closer to placing more guardrails around artificial intelligence-powered chatbots.

The Senate passed a bill that aims to make chatbots used for companionship safer after parents raised concerns that virtual characters harmed their childrens’ mental health.

The legislation, which now heads to the California State Assembly, shows how state lawmakers are tackling safety concerns surrounding AI as tech companies release more AI-powered tools.

“The country is watching again for California to lead,” said Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, on the Senate floor.

At the same time, lawmakers are trying to balance concerns that they could be hindering innovation. Groups opposed to the bill such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the legislation is too broad and would run into free speech issues, according to a Senate floor analysis of the bill.

Advertisement

Under Senate Bill 243, operators of companion chatbot platforms would remind users at least every three hours that the virtual characters aren’t human. They would also disclose that companion chatbots might not be suitable for some minors.

Platforms would also need to take other steps such as implementing a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide or self-harm expressed by users. That includes showing users suicide prevention resources.

Suicide prevention and crisis counseling resources

If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, seek help from a professional and call 9-8-8. The United States’ first nationwide three-digit mental health crisis hotline 988 will connect callers with trained mental health counselors. Text “HOME” to 741741 in the U.S. and Canada to reach the Crisis Text Line.

Advertisement

The operator of these platforms would also report the number of times a companion chatbot brought up suicide ideation or actions with a user, along with other requirements.

Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson, one of the bill’s co-authors, said she supports innovation but it also must come with “ethical responsibility.” Chatbots, the senator said, are engineered to hold people’s attention including children.

“When a child begins to prefer interacting with AI over real human relationships, that is very concerning,” said Sen. Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa).

The bill defines companion chatbots as AI systems capable of meeting the social needs of users. It excludes chatbots that businesses use for customer service.

Advertisement

The legislation garnered support from parents who lost their children after they started chatting with chatbots. One of those parents is Megan Garcia, a Florida mom who sued Google and Character.AI after her son Sewell Setzer III died by suicide last year.

In the lawsuit, she alleges the platform’s chatbots harmed her son’s mental health and failed to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to these virtual characters.

Character.AI, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. The company has said that it takes teen safety seriously and rolled out a feature that gives parents more information about the amount of time their children are spending with chatbots on the platform.

Character.AI asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a federal judge in May allowed the case to proceed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending