EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC

Filing 4

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment with Memo in Support by FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Dianne Brandi, Esq., # 2 Exhibit A to Brandi Affidavit, # 3 (sealed)Exhibit B to Brandi Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit C to Brandi Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit D to Brandi Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit E to Brandi Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit F to Brandi Affidavit, # 8 (sealed) Exhibit G to Brandi Affidavit, # 9 Exhibit H to Brandi Affidavit, # 10 Exhibit I to Brandi Affidavit, # 11 Exhibit J to Brandi Affidavit, # 12 (sealed) Exhibit K to Brandi Affidavit, # 13 Exhibit L to Brandi Affidavit, # 14 Exhibit M to Brandi Affidavit, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Morris, Frank). Added MOTION for Summary Judgment on 11/5/2010 (znmw, ). Modified on 11/9/2010 (zrdj). (The exhibits contained privacy information and was restricted pursuant to the E-Government Act.) Modified on 11/9/2010 (zrdj, ).

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC

Doc. 4 Att. 10

EXHIBIT L

Dockets.Justia.com

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Washington Field Office
"',,X,ì'i^"#ć

yd

-$ig3i

'ITY Q02)419-0702 FAX[phone]'140

[phone]

o.n",nr rnJlïnTff [ć33ì ::3:i33;

Charge No. 570-2008-01 94S

Catherine Herridge 220M St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

Charging Parry

Fox News Network LLC 400 North Capitol St., N.W. Suite 550 Washington, D.C.20001

Respondent

DETERMINATION
On behalf of the Commission, I issue the following determination on the merits of the subject Charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 7964,as amended ("Title VII,,), the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended ("EPA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 196l, as amended ("ADEA"). Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have been met. Charging Party alleges that she was discriminatorily demoted based on her sex and age and was denied equal wages based on her sex. Charging Party fuither alleges that after she complained of discrimination, she was denied preferable assignments, was denied opportunities for promotion, and was presented with a new employment contract that contained retaliatory language. Charging Party also alleges that a class of individuals was discriminatorily denierl pro-ătiont based on their sex, race, and national origin.
Respondent denies the allegations.

The evidence obtained in the investigation supports a finding that Respondent retaliated against Charging Party, in violation of Title VII, the EPA, and the ADEA, because Charging Țarty opposed discrimination. For example, the evidence shows that Charging Party complained of discrimination on several occasions, and within close proximity of one of those compìaints, the Respondent disseminated a company-wide email discouraging employee complaints. In addition, Respondent included new language in Charging Party's proposed employment contract that referenced Charging Party's allegations of discrimination and contributed to the delay in contract negotiations, which resulted inCharging Party working without an employment contract and being denied full wages. Respondent's actions in response to Charging Party's opposition to discrimination caused Charging Pafy harm and are reasonably likely to deter empțees from exercising their right to oppose discrimination.

Based on the foregoing, I find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to retaliation in the terms and conditions of employment and with respect to wages, in violation of Title VII, the EPA, and the ADEA.

With respect to Charging Parfy's allegations that she was demoted, denied equal wages, denied assignments, and denied promotion based on her sex, age, or in retaliation, or that a class of indi','iduals ..'Ąas disorirninatorily denied promotions, +.ćere is insufFrcient e.żidence to establish a violation of the statutes as to these allegations. This does not, however, certify that Respondent is in compliance with Title VII, the EPA, and the ADEA as to these allegations.
Ulpon finding that a violation has occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of the matter. The confidentiality provisions of Sections 706 and 709 of Title VII and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation Respondent declines to disouss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the Office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each parly in the near future to begin conciliation.

If

You are reminded that Federal law prohibits retaliation against persons who have exercised their right to inquire or complain abouf matters they believ. -uy 'niolut. the law. Discrimination against persons who have cooperated in Commission investigations is also prohibited. These protections apply regardless of the Commission's determination on the merits of the charge.

On Behalf of the Commission:

Acting Director Washington Field Office

CC:

Tina Maiolo Carr Maloney P.C. 1615 L St., N.V/. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036

Barry Asen Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 250 Park Avenue

NewYork,NY

10177