Three anchors suing station

[Bureau Chief]

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/34516184.html

[Sultanosurf]

KMBC site doesn't even name the three.

[wx or not]

Three women employees sue KMBC for age and gender discrimination

By DAN MARGOLIES and AARON BARNHART

The Kansas City Star
About 25 years ago, KMBC-TV anchor Christine Craft filed a pioneering gender discrimination suit against the Kansas City television station — a suit that damaged its reputation for years.

Now three of the most senior female on-air personalities at KMBC (Channel 9) have filed their own gender and age discrimination suit against the station, claiming they were publicly humiliated, degraded and demoted.
Kelly Eckerman, Peggy Breit and Maria Albisu-Twyman, known on air as Maria Antonia, allege a “pattern and practice” of discrimination at Channel 9 and “a hostile environment, permeated with threats, intimidation and disrespect.”
“Even unaffected newsroom employees have commented about the publicly humiliating and degrading treatment of women over 40, including but not limited to these plaintiffs,” the suit states.
Eckerman is 48 and has worked at KMBC for more than 18 years. Breit is 54 and has worked there for 27 years. Antonia is 49 and has been there for 25 years. They continue to work at the station.
Eckerman and Antonia contend they were demoted as anchors even as much older men kept their anchor positions and younger women were promoted.
Channel 9 officials did not return calls seeking comment. Trina Le Riche, an attorney for Channel 9’s parent, Hearst-Argyle Stations Inc. of New York, denied the lawsuit’s allegations. Hearst-Argyle is also named as a defendant in the suit.
“The company is and always has been an equal opportunity employer and neither tolerates nor practices discrimination nor harassment of any kind,” Le Riche said.
Once considered one of the ideal places for news talent, KMBC enjoyed a remarkable run of more than a decade as the market’s dominant news leader — largely on the strength of its on-air personalities.
Until 2007, Eckerman was paired with Kris Ketz on the station’s 5 p.m. newscast — a program that never finished out of first place in the ratings. Antonia is the city’s most recognizable Hispanic journalist.
The three women are represented by Kansas City attorney Dennis Egan, who represented Craft in her celebrated case, one that drew national attention. Craft, an anchor at the station, was demoted at the age of 37 after being told she was “too old, too unattractive and wouldn’t defer to men.” KMBC at the time was owned by Metromedia.
A federal jury in Kansas City awarded Craft $500,000 in damages, but the judge threw out the verdict on the ground it was excessive. The case was retried and a second jury awarded her $350,000, but that award was thrown out on appeal. Although KMBC wound up not having to pay, its ratings suffered for years.
“They never seem to learn,” Craft, now a lawyer and radio talk show host in California, said Friday upon being told of the new lawsuit against KMBC.
“I know plenty of women in television in their 50s who are still anchoring newscasts,” she said. “The main difference, though, is that the women have to have two facelifts for every one face-lift for the males. But it’s certainly better since my case occurred.”
She added: “There’s nothing wrong with being young and pretty, but if you consider television news journalism — and I’m not quite sure that I do — you don’t really get good at that until you have sources, you’re a beat reporter, you know who to talk to and you know how the world works. And that’s not something you get just by being cute.”

http://m1.2mdn.net/835417/trans.gif

[Consider This]

So what happens at trial -- if it gets that far -- when the station pulls out focus group research that shows that viewers don't like watching these three women?

Let's face it: The only qualitative measure of a television news anchor is that people like to watch you do it. Christine Craft said herself that she can't say for sure that TV news counts as journalism.

Is it the station's fault that American society in general discriminates against older women?

[Roy Hobbs]

The only qualitative measure of a television news anchor is that people like to watch you do it.

And I for one know who'd LOVE to watch them do it. (jazz music from Taxi Driver starts up). Hello Ladies. You three sad, sophisticated sirens of saucy near septugenarian delivery. What say you come over to Big Red's fireside studio and explore what really goes on behind the microphone...
http://alankalter.net/typo3temp/pics/af5da2953c.jpg

[Gail sirens]

So what happens at trial -- if it gets that far -- when the station pulls out focus group research that shows that viewers don't like watching these three women?

Let's face it: The only qualitative measure of a television news anchor is that people like to watch you do it. Christine Craft said herself that she can't say for sure that TV news counts as journalism.

Is it the station's fault that American society in general discriminates against older women?

YES, it's the station's fault.
They demoted them, but kept them.
They should have let them go, then replaced them with the young and the cheap

[adam & doctor drew]

Eckerman is 48 and has worked at KMBC for more than 18 years. Breit is 54 and has worked there for 27 years. Antonia is 49 and has been there for 25 years. They continue to work at the station.
http://m1.2mdn.net/835417/trans.gif

sounds to me like they've had a better run than most.

[Spike]

So what happens at trial -- if it gets that far -- when the station pulls out focus group research that shows that viewers don't like watching these three women?

That depends on whether the members of the jury agree with the focus group.

Come on. Three local women who are known and respected in this tight-knit midwestern community vs. a Big Evil Media Corporation from New York City. With whom do you think a jury will side?

This will never make it to trial. Hearst-Argyle will settle.

[OntheRebound]

So what happens at trial -- if it gets that far -- when the station pulls out focus group research that shows that viewers don't like watching these three women?

Let's face it: The only qualitative measure of a television news anchor is that people like to watch you do it. Christine Craft said herself that she can't say for sure that TV news counts as journalism.

Is it the station's fault that American society in general discriminates against older women?

You are making an assumption that could very well be wrong. What if you have focus group research that says people like watching these women? Where does your argument go then?

It is too often assumed that JUST BECAUSE these women are older viewers will automatically want to watch another woman JUST BECAUSE she is younger. The dominant anchor in the market where I work now, according to all the research and focus groups, is in her 60's. The woman close behind her is in her 40's. They are killing the women hired at our station, who are in their 20's, and trying to compete with their experience and followings.

Same with the last market where I worked. I'm sure there are markets where the reverse is true; but I think it's both sexist and irresponsible to ASSUME a woman's age means fewer people will watch.

However, because news managers want to save money (the most common reason I believe) or just want to have pretty young women parading themselves around the station (second most common reason IMHO) these women are being edged out of their jobs. Rather than asking these women to take a pay cut or using some other cost-cutting measure, they are simply giving their jobs to someone cheaper which could be argued to be discriminatory...certainly the latter reason could be as well.

And just because large segments of America tolerate this particular brand of discrimination does not make it right or just for stations to operate this way.

What I find interesting is that you are seeing more and more men claim age discrimination in this business. The older white men who usually didn't fear for their jobs the way women do are now being edged out at the same pace for financial reasons. The same men who did not seem to have a problem with having their more experienced female peers dumped for no reason other than age-- are now claiming the same type of unfairness which is also largely based on their huge salaries.

I think it's interesting so many of them are trying to claim that their being, fat, bald, slovenly or othewise visually unappealing as irrelevant in a visual medium, now that the shoe is on the other foot. I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of some of these cases.

[FrontierMan]

So I take it that big bad Hearst doesn't require arbitration contracts. Nice.

It's the nature of the beast. These women should have known this was coming.

[s'news]

If they have arbitration clauses in their contracts, then it goes there first.

[Consider This]

You are making an assumption that could very well be wrong. What if you have focus group research that says people like watching these women? Where does your argument go then?

I wasn't making an assumption. I was asking what the women's legal standing was if the station could show that people didn't like watching them.

[Consider This]

Come on. Three local women who are known and respected in this tight-knit midwestern community vs. a Big Evil Media Corporation from New York City. With whom do you think a jury will side?

I dunno. The alleged victims are three highly paid teevee news anchors. They're not the most sympathetic figures. Tight-knit community? We're talking Kansas City; not Topeka, Kansas.

And if I'm the station's lawyer, I don't need the jury to agree with the focus group. I just need it to agree that the station was acting on the results of viewer research.

[Spike]

They're not the most sympathetic figures.

They will be in the mouth of the right lawyer.

Tight-knit community?

It will be in the mouth of the right lawyer.

And if I'm the station's lawyer, I don't need the jury to agree with the focus group. I just need it to agree that the station was acting on the results of viewer research.

And the right lawyer on the other side will attack the methods used with the focus group to show the jury that the Big Evil Media Company hired Big Evil Consultants to give them the answer they wanted in order to justify discrimination. And the lawsuit involves three anchors, not just one. It won't be hard to get the jury to question research that says all three anchors, after decades in the city, aren't liked and respected by viewers.

[Jane Craig]

Age discrimination is the most insidious form of workplace discrimination. The customary excuse is that changes were made for economic reasons, but that is frequently a smoke screen for removing or reassigning over-40 employees. And that is not unique to TV news -- it happened to my brother, who is a financial executive.

[Consider This]

They will be in the mouth of the right lawyer.

It will be in the mouth of the right lawyer.


In the mouth of the right lawyer it will be just as easy to paint the three as high-priced prima donnas who may as well live in New York City for all they have in common with the regular folk from that tight-knit midwest community.

Who has more money to pay for the right lawyers?

And well-respected? Have we forgotten that we're talking about television news anchors here? All the station's lawyers have to do is get people on the jury who don't watch this particular station.

Or anyone who has anything above a high-school education. They don't hold teevee news in that high esteem.

However this suit ends, it's not going to change the fact that if you're old and expensive, your days are probably numbered in today's TV news. I'm not saying that's right. I'm saying that's what is.

I notice that two of the plaintiffs started working at the station in their 20s at a time when the climb to a large market took more effort than it does now. It would be ironic if people who rode the young and beautiful train into town were complaining that they were now being reboarded for the outbound trip.

Two wrongs don't make a right but they sometimes make things even.

[Spike]

In the mouth of the right lawyer it will be just as easy to paint the three as high-priced prima donnas who may as well live in New York City for all they have in common with the regular folk from that tight-knit midwest community.

Not when the anchors' lawyers bring out promos done over the years by the station intended to show viewers how down to earth and involved in the community these women are. Then the station's efforts to make them look bad will look like double talk and hypocrisy.

[Consider This]

Not when the anchors' lawyers bring out promos done over the years by the station intended to show viewers how down to earth and involved in the community these women are. Then the station's efforts to make them look bad will look like double talk and hypocrisy.

I've seen lots of promos over the years. Not one touted an anchor's down-to-earthiness.

Lame.

[OntheRebound]

I wasn't making an assumption. I was asking what the women's legal standing was if the station could show that people didn't like watching them.


I don't care to debate what some lawyer may or may not say in court. I've been through a sex discrimination lawsuit myself and found that most of what people THINK they know about what happens or will happen in court and during the course of such lawsuits is very close to completely wrong. Each case and its circumstances are so entirely different.

Anyway, I have had this conversation with several people, as there are pending lawsuits in this market from 2 male anchors and one female anchor claiming age discrimination.

I just noticed people rarely bring up the line of thinking you did when the anchors in question are male--that's why I responded, as it was not clear to me that you were just simply posing the question.

Just as there is rarely an assumption that male anchors are "riding the youth train" into certain positions before they are ready for them and then *****ing when the cycle repeats itself.

It is often implied that men are definitely owed something when they pay their dues, in ways that women are not. It's like a natural assumption that a man who has worked his way up some place, deserves to keep his standing and job more so than a woman who has done the same.

We seem to be programmed to believe that older women MUST step aside for younger women regardless of circumstances, but a man can reign until he decides to step aside on his own terms.

Anyway, this double standard (IMHO) is why I am so eager to see where these male age discrimination lawsuits go.

[Fake Post]

O.K. Here's how it goes in teevee news.

Women reach the anchor chair at a younger age because of their looks. That is why you see the older man younger woman anchor teams in most major markets.

The only exceptions to this seem to be in markets where the minority populations make it difficult for stations to ditch the ethnic female talent when she loses her looks.

Do you think Marie Antonia would have made it so quick to Kansas City if she was a non-ethnic caucasion? Let me answer that....Probably not.

Now, these three ladies will probably lose their suit and go to work selling real estate because the teevee stations have a lot of latitude in who they want to hire or fire.

Here's what I would say if I was the GM of that station.

Anchoring a newscast is a priviledge, not a right. I don't owe you a living. I CAN discriminate based upon the money you make but I will NEVER tell you that I discriminated against you because of your race, age or gender.

As for keeping the older guy on the anchor desk, what about it? I can and will do whatever it takes to run a successful tv station. If the ratings show that old guy is liked and you are not, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[PSUWx]

That depends on whether the members of the jury agree with the focus group.

Come on. Three local women who are known and respected in this tight-knit midwestern community vs. a Big Evil Media Corporation from New York City. With whom do you think a jury will side?

This will never make it to trial. Hearst-Argyle will settle.

I believe what's happend in the past is that the jury rules in their favor, company appeals (upping the costs)...single judge sides enough with the company to remand it back for retrial...(upping the costs)...jury again sides in talents' favor...company again appeals...(upping the costs)...single judge throws it out...talent is broke. company overspends for the principal...so it goes...

[Hard_reign2004]

I don't think the argument is whether the station is right or wrong, because this falls somewhere in the many grays of tv news. I think Fake has a good point when he says that we all know that female reporters and anchors shoot up the ladder faster than male counterpoints. Is it right that they are getting pushed to the side? Nope. But that is the beast. I would think that a big point would be was their pay affected? Switching people around to different shows always happens no matter who you are. It still doesn't make what would appear to be a pattern any better.

[Consider This]

I don't care to debate what some lawyer may or may not say in court.

Well, gosh. I guess we didn't need this thread at all, then.

Of course there's a double standard. It's an societal issue not exclusive to any business. For all I know it's hard wired into our DNA.

And stations have been dumping older higher-priced employees for long enough that if this one couldn't manage to do it without getting sued, it probably deserves to pay up.

But no court ruling is going to change human nature.

[Camera 47]

Consider This has a point, and it's been successfully argued by broadcasters.

Here's a case that makes the point rather succinctly:

Bernhard v. Nexstar Broadcasting (3rd Cir. 2005)
http://vlex.com/vid/19890648

The ruling specifically states:

"Bernhard next argues that "high salary" is not a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating an employee. That argument is undermined by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins,507 U.S. 604 (1993). There, the Supreme Court noted that "an employee's age is analytically distinct from his years of service" and that employers therefore can take one factor into account while ignoring the other. Id. at 611. Thus, the Court held that a termination based on a factor related to length of service does not violate the ADEA because it is not necessarily "age-based." Id. Here, Bernhard's salary is analytically distinct from his age, and therefore, could serve as a legitimate reason for terminating him under the Hazen Paper analysis."

The ruling also adds that:

"Finally, Bernhard maintains that Nexstar's proffered reasons for termination are unworthy of credence because Nexstar's reasons for terminating him were not grounded in objective evidence of his shortcomings as a photojournalist. Nexstar specifically alleged that Bernhard often used "jump cuts," failed to check the black-white balance of his camera, and failed to use a tripod where appropriate. App. 123. Bernhard points out that Nexstar did not offer any footage to buttress these assertions. Unfortunately, Nexstar does not index its videotapes by photojournalist, nor does it save tapes of poor quality.

Therefore, neither Nexstar nor Bernhard could produce objective evidence of the quality of Bernhard's work at WJET-TV. The absence of the objective proof is therefore of little, if any, probative value. Nevertheless, Bernhard had the burden of proof. As Nexstar points out, he did not provide any evidence of commendations, awards, or pay raises that could have rebutted Nexstar's assertions about his abilities."

Maybe those "meaningless" NPPA contests have some merit after all... Had the plaintiff in this case been an award-winning journalist, maybe he would still be employed.

In the original case, was demoting 3 experienced anchorwomen the "right thing to do? Probably not, but I've worked with managers much more interested in doing things right than doing the right things. In those cases, there's no solution so there's no problem. Managers who think along those lines are usually the first to be made "non-essential" when the next round of firings comes along. What goes around comes around and bad decisions tend to linger.

I would think the negative PR generated from the the allegations the women at KMBC made would work against a station unless there were similar demotions across the board.