Wendy Bell sues WTAE for racial discrimination (horse, company)

[Et Cetera]

I think there is some confusion concerning what Ms. Bell is actually suing over. There are very few racial discrimination claims that allege that the employer fired individuals solely because of their race, as if one were conducting some sort of purge. What she is claiming is that, as a white woman, she was being held to ethical standards that were higher, or at least different, than they would presumably be for non-whites. If I, as an employer, have a policy that states, for example, that I will terminate any black employee who is convicted of a misdemeanor, but will only terminate a white employee who is convicted of a felony, then the policy I have in place is clearly racially discriminatory. It's worth mentioning that news anchors are contract employees and are not ordinarily subject to "at will" employment, meaning the contract can only be terminated in certain clearly delineated circumstances. In this case, there was presumably a clause that enabled termination for "ethical violations" or some other vague term that can be subject to greatly varying interpretation. If, as is alleged in the complaint, if a black employee makes lewd comments to interns to the extent that it becomes a major problem, and the station would rather end the program than discipline the employee, but fires her for making controversial public statements, a jury could reasonably conclude that it was holding her to a higher standard based on race.

To those who are arguing about the appropriateness of a news anchor speculating and editorializing about a news story, that's not really relevant to the case at hand. WTAE never claimed that this was the reason for her firing, and if they did, no one would believe them since they let her and others do it for years before the incident, and reportedly encouraged it. If you feel there is an ethical violation here, it's on WTAE and not Ms. Bell.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Et Cetera

I think there is some confusion concerning what Ms. Bell is actually suing over. There are very few racial discrimination claims that allege that the employer fired individuals solely because of their race, as if one were conducting some sort of purge. What she is claiming is that, as a white woman, she was being held to ethical standards that were higher, or at least different, than they would presumably be for non-whites. If I, as an employer, have a policy that states, for example, that I will terminate any black employee who is convicted of a misdemeanor, but will only terminate a white employee who is convicted of a felony, then the policy I have in place is clearly racially discriminatory. It's worth mentioning that news anchors are contract employees and are not ordinarily subject to "at will" employment, meaning the contract can only be terminated in certain clearly delineated circumstances. In this case, there was presumably a clause that enabled termination for "ethical violations" or some other vague term that can be subject to greatly varying interpretation. If, as is alleged in the complaint, if a black employee makes lewd comments to interns to the extent that it becomes a major problem, and the station would rather end the program than discipline the employee, but fires her for making controversial public statements, a jury could reasonably conclude that it was holding her to a higher standard based on race.

To those who are arguing about the appropriateness of a news anchor speculating and editorializing about a news story, that's not really relevant to the case at hand. WTAE never claimed that this was the reason for her firing, and if they did, no one would believe them since they let her and others do it for years before the incident, and reportedly encouraged it. If you feel there is an ethical violation here, it's on WTAE and not Ms. Bell.

O rly?

Wendy Bell, fired over her controversial Facebook posts, says she didn

“WTAE has ended its relationship with anchor Wendy Bell,” read a statement from Hearst Television, the station's parent company. “Wendy's recent comments on a WTAE Facebook page were inconsistent with the company's ethics and journalistic standards.”

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Et Cetera

I think there is some confusion concerning what Ms. Bell is actually suing over. There are very few racial discrimination claims that allege that the employer fired individuals solely because of their race, as if one were conducting some sort of purge. What she is claiming is that, as a white woman, she was being held to ethical standards that were higher, or at least different, than they would presumably be for non-whites. If I, as an employer, have a policy that states, for example, that I will terminate any black employee who is convicted of a misdemeanor, but will only terminate a white employee who is convicted of a felony, then the policy I have in place is clearly racially discriminatory. It's worth mentioning that news anchors are contract employees and are not ordinarily subject to "at will" employment, meaning the contract can only be terminated in certain clearly delineated circumstances. In this case, there was presumably a clause that enabled termination for "ethical violations" or some other vague term that can be subject to greatly varying interpretation. If, as is alleged in the complaint, if a black employee makes lewd comments to interns to the extent that it becomes a major problem, and the station would rather end the program than discipline the employee, but fires her for making controversial public statements, a jury could reasonably conclude that it was holding her to a higher standard based on race.

To those who are arguing about the appropriateness of a news anchor speculating and editorializing about a news story, that's not really relevant to the case at hand. WTAE never claimed that this was the reason for her firing, and if they did, no one would believe them since they let her and others do it for years before the incident, and reportedly encouraged it. If you feel there is an ethical violation here, it's on WTAE and not Ms. Bell.

Wow. What a load of doublespeak and desperate rationalization you've given us.

No. We aren't "confused" about the suit. Bell violated journalistic standards with her comments. That's what she was fired for. Now she is bringing a frivolous suit against the station alleging racism as a motivation behind her termination. Her lawsuit and your defense of it are equally ludicrous.

[norcider]

Wendy Bell, maybe she's racist, maybe she's just an idiot:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh-A0FT0UQ

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Merge

Wow. What a load of doublespeak and desperate rationalization you've given us.

No. We aren't "confused" about the suit. Bell violated journalistic standards with her comments. That's what she was fired for. Now she is bringing a frivolous suit against the station alleging racism as a motivation behind her termination. Her lawsuit and your defense of it are equally ludicrous.

Unless you have access to both the evidence presented by Mrs Bell as well as the answers provided by the corporation then the above statement is without any merit at all.

The lawsuit may be frivolous but no one can know at this time unless you have information unavailable to the public you can share.

One would think allegations of civil rights discrimination would be taken more seriously

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Unless you have access to both the evidence presented by Mrs Bell as well as the answers provided by the corporation then the above statement is without any merit at all.

The lawsuit may be frivolous but no one can know at this time unless you have information unavailable to the public you can share.

On would think allegations of civil rights discrimination would be taken more seriously

Opinions and feelings always seem to take precedence over facts with some which is what many are basing the outcome of the case on. I'm looking forward to hearing all the facts and evidence that's planned to win this case.

I can't imagine WTAE is looking forward to what is going to be put out there.

[Et Cetera]

No, WTAE never specifically claimed that speculation and editorializing, in and of themselves, were the reasons for Bell's firing, and I don't think that vaguely citing "journalistic standards" would cut it either. I was unable to find a copy of Hearst's ethics guidelines online, but assuming it is similar to the others I was able to look at, it's okay to speculate about the news provided that you're not presenting it as fact and that it's clearly part of a commentary and not the news itself. Turn on any cable news channel and there will be plenty of speculation and editorializing by journalists about everything from the upcoming presidential election, to the chances of the Pens repeating, to the whereabouts of the latest airplane that disappeared. Now, if WTAE had specific prohibitions in place, that's another story, but I haven't seen any of that.

I would also point out that I couldn't stand Ms. Bell when she was on TV, and switched to KDKA right around the time she dressed up as an old woman to see if anyone would help her cross the street. I'm not trying to defend anything she said, or express any opinion as to whether she was unfairly discriminated against, or speculate about what the possible outcome is (at least for now). I don't have any information to go on other than what is publicly available. I'm simply trying to articulate the relevant legal argument she would have to make, given the circumstances as I understand them, in order to make a case to a jury.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by Merge

Bell violated journalistic standards with her comments.

Hahahahaha!

Stop! You're killing us!

Hahahahahaa!

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Tell me about this political correctness. What does it entail? How does it impact our lives? I'm curious.

Really?

Seems to have got WB fired from her job.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Regardless of whether you, I or anyone else found it objectionable, this was a case of someone employed by a journalistic entity posting speculation on their corporate social media account. It's a terminable offense, period. End of discussion.

End of discussion?

Do you have access to WB's employment contract? There is usually a section on events that constitute grounds for termination.

If her comments, speculation as they were, constituted grounds for termination, I would think that the employer would have ended her employment immediately upon the event.

BUT, that is not what happened. IIRC, there was a buzz of discussion on fora such as this and suddenly, after about a week or so of such buzz, her employer decided to terminate her employment.

Seems obvious (to me at least) that the employer buckled to social mob pressure rather than applying an actual contractual clause to terminate WB's employment.

But, maybe you can show us where in her employment contract it is stated that she is not permitted to think and speculate in print.

I'll wait...