Fox 61 Reporter Discrimination Case: FAQ, Analysis and What's Next - Part I

The filing of a discrimination complaint at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities has certainly garnered a wide variety of responses from the local and national media. Indeed, yesterday, I was one of several invited guests to appear on WNPR's "Where We Live". (You can download the podcast here.)

But what's been lacking so far has been some perspective and analysis, beyond the superficial and headline-grabbing claims of a manager allegedly using the term "Big Boob Fridays". Here are some answers to some common questions or misconceptions about the matter.

  • This is a lawsuit, right?

No, all that has been filed thus far is a complaint of discrimination with the state agency responsible for investigating such complaints. Normally, these types of complaints are confidential, but Ms. Sindland and her attorney have publicized the filing of this complaint.  As discussed below, at some point, Ms. Sindland can ask the state agency to stop its investigation and ask for permission to file her claims in state or federal court. But we're still some ways away from that point.

  • What exactly is Ms. Sindland's complaint about?

Ms. Sindland alleges 4 different types of discrimination.  She claims her age, marital status (single), and gender  have all been factors in how she has been treated. She also alleges that she has been treated differently because she complained about that discrimination; this is known as a "retaliation" claim.  She has cited both the federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination.

  • How does Ms. Sindland contend she was treated differently?

She contends that she was: 1) given a poor performance review; 2) sexually harassed; 3) earned unequal pay; 4) delegated unequal duties; 5) given a deduction in pay; and 6) retaliated against.

  • I just saw Ms. Sindland on the air; how can she sue for discrimination?

Although a significant majority of discrimination claims arising from the termination of employment, both federal and state law prohibit employers from discriminating in the terms and conditions of a person's employment as well.  Here, Ms. Sindland is claiming, among other things, that she has been treated differently in those terms and conditions (like salary) then her male and younger counterparts.

Nevertheless, Ms. Sindland's damages (in other words, how much harm she has suffered as a result of the alleged discrimination) are significantly lower at this stage because it mainly consists of the gap of salary she contends she should be paid.

  • Ms. Sindland is only 40 years old; how can she sue for age discrimination?  

Federal law (ADEA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, and covers those who are 40 years of age or older. Connecticut law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, regardless of the age of the employee. Thus, in Connecticut, in theory, a 20 year old could claim that he or she was treated differently because of his or her age. Those claims though are extremely rare.

The company has at least 30 days to file a response with the state agency (though it can ask for a 15 day extension of time).  After that, the CHRO will issue a Merit Assessment Review within 90 days after the Complaint is received (basically determining whether the complaint is frivolous on its face). If it passes the MAR review, then the matter will be set down for a fact-finding and mediation, typically within the next six months.

But cases like this don't tend to stay at the state agency. Typically, the employee prefers to file the claim in state or federal court, where he or she can conduct discovery and take depositions of key witnesses.  However, ordinarily she must wait approximately 210 days from the date of filing to ask for permission from the state agency to bring the matter to court.

  • I've read the complaint and it seems like she's got a really strong case; how can the Company even defend the complaint?

The employer has emphatically denied the allegations of complaint in a press release, but has yet to spell out its legal and factual defenses for the public.  However, it is important to remember too that the complaint contains mere allegations; it may be that a thorough review of factual background of some of the incidents will provide a much clearer context than is given in the complaint. 

In addition, the company may have a number of legal defenses that it has yet to discuss. For example, the same supervisor who is alleged to have given her a demotion in 2009 was also the same supervisor who gave her a promotion and a three year contract in 2006.  Thus the question that can be asked is: If he were biased against women or older reporters, why did he give her such promotions a few years prior? Did he suddenly realize now that she was a woman or had gotten "old"? Indeed, I suspect we may hear that one reason for the company's decision now was an economic one.

In Part II, I'll discuss the company's policies and procedures manual and the fact that it seemingly tries to insulate itself from some types of harassment claims. The question is, can the company do that? Here's part of the policy according to its website:

Working at Tribune means accepting that sometimes you might hear a word that you, personally, might not use. You might experience an attitude that you don’t share. You might hear a joke that you might not consider funny. That is because a loose, fun, non-linear atmosphere is important to the creative process.

 

Fox 61 Reporter Files Age and Gender Discrimination Claim with CHRO; Is History Repeating Itself?

Over ten years ago, former WFSB (Channel 3) news anchor Janet Peckinpaugh shook up the media market in Hartford with claims of gender and age discrimination against her former news station. She claimed that she had been let go because she had gotten too old.

At the time, the case had all the elements of a soap opera, including the testimony from a sitting Connecticut Supreme Court justice and sensational allegations involving another high-profile television news anchor.  Respected journalist Mike Allen wrote a thorough piece about the claims in the New York Times.  

Ultimately, a jury awarded her $8.3M for her claims; the court later reduced that amount to $3.75M. The parties later resolved the matter as the judgment was vacated.  

I couldn't help but think about that case when I learned that Fox 61 political reporter Shelly Sindland, all of 40 years old and yet a fixture at that station for 14 years, filed a complaint of gender and age discrimination (and retaliation) with thPhoto courtesy of Ms. Sindland's bloge Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities earlier today.  (Due to a work-sharing agreement between the CHRO and the EEOC, the complaint is automatically cross-filed with the  EEOC too).   

The entire complaint -- filled with its own claims of lewdness and alleged inappropriate behavior -- can be downloaded here. (As I have often preached before, readers should be aware that these are mere allegations, not proven, and the Company has denied comment on the matter. UPDATE: The Associated Press is reporting that the station would, once again have no comment on the matter)

But among the allegations Ms. Sindland has made in the Complaint:

  • That fellow female anchor was asked to "appear on the news as though she were naked as part of a promotional campaign for her news reporting on April 1";
  • That during a meeting with reporters and anchors Jan. 30, 2009, the Fox 61 news director stated that the "Friday newscasts looked like “Big Boob Fridays,” and the station’s ratings were up as a result of at least one female reporter wearing a tighter shirt. "
  • That other older female anchors have been removed from various newscasts and replaced with younger women.

The attorney for Ms. Sindland, Elizabeth Conklin, provided the following comment to me via e-mail on Thursday afternoon:

As her complaint affidavit alleges, Fox 61 actively encourages younger women to 'be sexy,' and favors younger women and men of all ages over older, more experienced female on-air news professionals. It is always a difficult decision for someone who is still employed to file a complaint against their employer, particularly in this industry. The issues in the complaint have been raised by Shelly and others internally without any corrective action, however, and as a result, Shelly felt it was appropriate at this point to file a formal complaint with the Commission.

Ms. Sindland, who has her own blog, put up the following statement there which reads, in part:

I am doing this for my daughter as well as the other women at the television station both young and “old”. I do not in any way see this as a case of of “us” versus “them.” It is quite the contrary. I have come to think of the younger women at the station as friends and truly care about them. What is happening to me, is, by no means, their fault.

It’s just that, one day, they too will also be older and perhaps, mothers as well, and may not be considered “sexy enough.” The simple truth is that such issues should not be considered negative factors in a workplace – whether it is a factory or a television news organization.

I'll discuss some of the legal issues flowing from this in an upcoming post; in fact, the complaint itself raises a whole host of factual and legal issues.  For now, however, don't expect to hear much about this after the next few days as it relates to the legal process. The company has at least 30 days to file a response with the state agency.

After that, the CHRO will issue a Merit Assessment Review within 90 days after the Complaint is received (basically determining whether the complaint is frivolous on its face -- which probably isn't much of an issue here) and, if it passes, then eventually set the matter down for a fact-finding and mediation.  (The CHRO process is described here.)

Even then, don't expect the case to linger with the CHRO.  Unless some type of resolution is reached, I would expect Ms. Sindland to ask the state agency from a release of jurisdiction so she can bring the case directly to court (she must wait approximately 210 days from the date of filing to ask for such a release of jurisdiction).  

And expect another soap opera involving some of the state's media stars to begin again. 

(H/T The Laurel