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. 11

EXHIBIT M

Dockets.Justia.com

ttLN/ß/\Al0ITIIU i0: 40 AM
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPpoRTUNITtr cotflvfISSION
Washington Field Office

P.002

SüeeqN.E., Suire 4hMO2F lVashington, Þ, C. 20507 Intake llformarion Group: (800) 6694000 Intakc InfÞmation Group TfY; (800) 669-6S20

t3l M

lvashingon Status L¡ne: (866),+08-8075 Washingf on Dirc çt Diali (zaz) 419 "07

TrY (202)4t941V2 rAX (202) 4le-0740

tj

Jme 3,2010
Barry Asen Epstein Becker & Greerq P.C. 2S0ParkAvenue New Yorlç New York 10t77-l2ll

Rer

Herridge v. FoxNeræ Network LLC Charge No. 570-2009,01 948

Dear Mr. Asen:

I am writing in response to yor:r lettcr datçd May 18, 2010, requesting reconsideration the Letter of Detennination issued in tåe above-referenced charge. We regret your dissatisfaotion with the results of tte processing of this charge.
The EEOC will reconsider au EEOC determin¡tion lvhen subst¿¡rtial new relevant evidence is presented that wpuld warraut a change in the determination, or if the EEOC's

of

decisionwas contrary to the law or facts, 'We have giventhoughtful considerationto the issues you raised'ia your letter and have coucluded that you did not piesent substantia"l new relevant evidence or show that the EEoC's decision 'üras contrary to the law or facts.
As to yow concem reþarding raitren your client learned that it had been accused of retâlíating by dishibuting a Gompany-wide email disoouraging complaints, it is my understanding th¿t the investigator handling the cass, Yofi, WeinbÞrg! gave you thé nacr.e of the sender as weil as the datg time and subject of the e,tnail in question. Nonetheless, attached please find a copy ofthe email-

WitÍ ïespect to the laUguage in the rpnowal contract, the EEOC found that the language was likely to deter an individual from engaging in a protected activity. Wo ooncluded that the language led to lengthy contraot negotiations, during which Ms. Henidge wa-s not working on a contaöt and did not roceive tTre higher pay that she would have received had thrs provision not
been included. We

rêcoÐjzö that after your olient and Ms. Fle,tridge entered intoãrenewal contract, the wage itctease v/as rnadÊ retroaÇtive; obviously, this retroactive payrnent will affect the monetaryrelief to which Ms. Herridge is entiiled. At this time, we renev¡ ou request thar you join with the EEOC in an effort to resolve

JI,IN/03/201O/TIIu 10: 46

,{lvf

P, 003

this rnatter. Ms, Wçrnberg discussiots.

will

aontaot you shortly to

follow up regardiag couciliation

Thankyou.

Nfindy E. ¡Wárístein Aoting Director

frú^ú,#W