Anchorman sues Miami station for sexual discrimination

[Rollo-Smokes]

Charles Perez -- you remember him, right? He emerged from a producer's role on Ricki Lake to host a short-lived talk show of his own in the middle 1990s, before becoming a serious television journalist.

Well, he has filed a discrimination lawsuit against his current employer, Post-Newsweek's WPLG in Miami, claiming he was demoted as co-anchor of its weekday evening newscasts on the basis of his sexual orientation.

Perez, who is openly gay, joined WPLG in 2006 after a two-year stint at WABC-TV in New York. He previously worked in Miami for WSVN before going North. Last year WPLG tabbed him to replace the retiring Dwight Lauderdale as its weeknight co-anchor.

And, here's the kicker: the WPLG news director, who informed Perez of his demotion to weekend anchor/weekday reporter, is himself gay. Lots of drama. Could we have a new millennium Christine Craft-like story in the works?

Read on: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/08/anchor-charles-perez-too-gay-for-abc-10.html

 

[LKellerIII]

Charles Perez -- you remember him, right? He emerged from a producer's role on Ricki Lake to host a short-lived talk show of his own in the middle 1990s, before becoming a serious television journalist.

Well, he has filed a discrimination lawsuit against his current employer, Post-Newsweek's WPLG in Miami, claiming he was demoted as co-anchor of its weekday evening newscasts on the basis of his sexual orientation.

Perez, who is openly gay, joined WPLG in 2006 after a two-year stint at WABC-TV in New York. He previously worked in Miami for WSVN before going North. Last year WPLG tabbed him to replace the retiring Dwight Lauderdale as its weeknight co-anchor.

And, here's the kicker: the WPLG news director, who informed Perez of his demotion to weekend anchor/weekday reporter, is himself gay. Lots of drama. Could we have a new millennium Christine Craft-like story in the works?

Read on: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/08/anchor-charles-perez-too-gay-for-abc-10.html

Perez will have a hard time proving it unless he has a "smoking gun" of some kind. Christine Craft (who is now a very good talk show host on KGO radio in San Francisco) had one. If I remember correctly it was the results of a focus group her employer (Metromedia) had conducted that described her as "too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men."

Even with that, she ultimately lost her case when the court threw out the $500,000 judgment against Metromedia.

Not surprisingly, the title of her autobiography is Too Old, Too Ugly, and Not Deferential to Men.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Being in the popular culture involves being popular.

If you're not popular in a role where your job is to be popular, your employer should have every right to fire you.

In some places more than others, being homosexual is unpopular. Not sure if Miami is one of those places or not, never been there.

 

[LKellerIII]

Being in the popular culture involves being popular.

If you're not popular in a role where your job is to be popular, your employer should have every right to fire you.

In some places more than others, being homosexual is unpopular. Not sure if Miami is one of those places or not, never been there.

So....if I extend your logic, you are saying that it would be OK to fire an African-American anchor or reporter in a market that includes a lot of racists.

Sorry - that won't fly. Let me quote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employert o fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

While Title VII does not technically include sexual preference, courts have often ruled in favor of litigants who have sued based on this kind of discrimination.

The job of a news anchor or reporter is to deliver the news, not to "be popular," per se. If Perez's employer can make a case that the action had nothing to do with his sexual preference, they'll probably win, but if Perez can prove discrimination was a factor, the employer has a problem.

 

[landtuna]

Being in the popular culture involves being popular.

If you're not popular in a role where your job is to be popular, your employer should have every right to fire you.

In some places more than others, being homosexual is unpopular. Not sure if Miami is one of those places or not, never been there.

So....if I extend your logic, you are saying that it would be OK to fire an African-American anchor or reporter in a market that includes a lot of racists.

Sorry - that won't fly. Let me quote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employert o fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

While Title VII does not technically include sexual preference, courts have often ruled in favor of litigants who have sued based on this kind of discrimination.

The job of a news anchor or reporter is to deliver the news, not to "be popular," per se. If Perez's employer can make a case that the action had nothing to do with his sexual preference, they'll probably win, but if Perez can prove discrimination was a factor, the employer has a problem.

It's unfortunate PTBoardOp mentioned homosexuality in his statement because I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. Otherwise his statements are true. On-air personalities are paid to be popular. That could mean their speaking voice, visual attributes, on-air presence etc. If they do not attract an audience of satisfactory size or attribute to suit the broadcaster and his advertiser customers they cannot, in all good conscience, be surprised if they are replaced with someone who can.

To have a case against his former employer the person in question would have to prove his firing was due to intolerance of his homosexuality and not to "inability to perform".

 

[LKellerIII]

Being in the popular culture involves being popular.

If you're not popular in a role where your job is to be popular, your employer should have every right to fire you.

In some places more than others, being homosexual is unpopular. Not sure if Miami is one of those places or not, never been there.

So....if I extend your logic, you are saying that it would be OK to fire an African-American anchor or reporter in a market that includes a lot of racists.

Sorry - that won't fly. Let me quote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employert o fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

While Title VII does not technically include sexual preference, courts have often ruled in favor of litigants who have sued based on this kind of discrimination.

The job of a news anchor or reporter is to deliver the news, not to "be popular," per se. If Perez's employer can make a case that the action had nothing to do with his sexual preference, they'll probably win, but if Perez can prove discrimination was a factor, the employer has a problem.

It's unfortunate PTBoardOp mentioned homosexuality in his statement because I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. Otherwise his statements are true. On-air personalities are paid to be popular. That could mean their speaking voice, visual attributes, on-air presence etc. If they do not attract an audience of satisfactory size or attribute to suit the broadcaster and his advertiser customers they cannot, in all good conscience, be surprised if they are replaced with someone who can.

To have a case against his former employer the person in question would have to prove his firing was due to intolerance of his homosexuality and not to "inability to perform".

Yes - agreed, and I said that in my first response when I stated that Perez would need a "smoking gun" similar to the focus group stuff that Christine Craft had. In her case, too - you could say that the bottom line was popularity. Her employer believed she would be unpopular because she wasn't young, wasn't pretty, and didn't have a bubbly 70s 'anchor-chick' attitude on air. Nevertheless, two juries awarded her $500,000. She ultimately lost the suit, but I bet her employer (Metromedia) paid at least that much in legal fees. These days, they would have settled out of court.

Times have changed. The Bay Area has a veteran female anchor named Cheryl Jennings who is in her mid 50s. Actually, she's quite attractive, and has always been popular with viewers. But I guarantee, they wouldn't dare fire her due to her age - not anymore.

My objection to PTBoardOp04's statement was because he seemed to be saying it was OK to fire Perez if the reason is that gays are unpopular in his media market. Not so! That's not a legally defensible reason.

But the burdon of proof will be on Perez. If he has no evidence that he's been discriminated against due to his homosexuality, he will no doubt lose his case.

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

Being in the popular culture involves being popular.

If you're not popular in a role where your job is to be popular, your employer should have every right to fire you.

In some places more than others, being homosexual is unpopular.  Not sure if Miami is one of those places or not, never been there.

This insipid and ignorant statement isn't worth responding to as far as I'm concerned.  Next...

Sorry - that won't fly. Let me quote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employert o fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

While Title VII does not technically include sexual preference, courts have often ruled in favor of litigants who have sued based on this kind of discrimination.

The job of a news anchor or reporter is to deliver the news, not to "be popular," per se.  If Perez's employer can make a case that the action had nothing to do with his sexual preference, they'll probably win, but if Perez can prove discrimination was a factor, the employer has a problem.

In Perez's statement, he says the ND evaluated his performance and wanted him to "smile more" or something to that effect, as opposed to appearing too serious.  Later on, the ND reversed his original assessment (the phrase "laughing like girlfriends" is used there).  Perez believes that the news director's 180-degree turnaround, and the subsequent events which led to his demotion, came down from station management.  Perez says it all began when some off-screen incidents came into public view -- the most prominent being Perez's filing a restraining order against his former partner after he forwarded a confidential e-mail between Perez and his therapist to everyone in Charles' contact list, including several WPLG employees (the ND among them).

Perez names a few co-workers in his statement.  His co-anchor Laurie Jennings appears prominently as someone whom he confided in, and who witnessed verbal exchanges between Perez and the ND.  However, I seriously doubt Ms. Jennings would jeopardize her job on Charles' behalf.  That may hurt his case.

Of course, the (gay) news director says the station needed to trim the budget any way they could.  And being an out individual, he would never discriminate against another out individual.

 

[mleach]

Having a "smoking gun", statements, more proof, etc...really in this day and age is it really possible or even wise to sue your employer ( past or present ) even if YOU were in the right? Afterall employment is in the US is "at will" which means one can be fired/demoted at anytime and for any reason. The net is full of "at-will" horror stories by people who found themselves out the door for the most dumbest of reasons and/or being demoted only to be told when they complain about it "..sorry..employment is at will".

For example my sister-in-law. Last December her boss evaluated her performance and told her she was doiing a great job..of course this was on paper. Then three weeks later the same boss had fired her saying that "it didn't work out".. Of course she brought up that review that claimed her boss said her work was "great". However her boss admitted that he lied about the whole thing because "I didn't want to hurt your feelings..you are such a nice lady". Despite the fact that he even wrote THAT on paper and HIS boss saw it, she still didn't get her job back as they pointed out "employment at will". Suing? No lawyer in her town wanted to get involved..again saying that the firing was 100 percent legal because of employment being at will despite the admitted lying. I have even heard of cases where people who were under some contract or even a part of a union, losing their jobs only to be told they can't get it back because..you gessed it..employment being at will.

Kinda wonder if this ( at will ) was the key reason why Kraft's case was thrown out? If it was, surprised Perez would even bother.

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

WPLG fired Charles Perez yesterday. Now it's gonna get even uglier.

Read on: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/08/breaking-news-wplg-fires-anchor-charles-perez.html

 

[Markxxx]

The thing seems to be Perez feels that his gentleman friend was causing a fuss and that is why he was demoted. He feels that if his girlfriend was causing a stink that wouldn't have happened.

If so then he has a point.

I live in Chicago and we get a lot of anchors demoted for stupid reason, they come and go. Anchors often have "morals clauses" in their contract, which controls their behaviour so they don't harm the stations reputation. For instance, a clause may restrict an anchors ability to campaign for a political candidate for participate in a pro-life rally, simply because they want them to appear neutral.

The problem I see for Perez is this, even if it is true, he really is only average. I mean he was watchable and I didn't find him awful, but I'd say as anchors go he is strictly average.

While there's nothing bad about his sytle, I don't find anything great about it either.

Perhaps this lawsuit is a "strategy" to bigger things. I mean gay anchors are still by in large closeted or refuse to admit it. So by being an openly gay anchor perhaps he feels the publicity will lead him to some sympathy and a job on a cable network with major exposure.

 

[mleach]

Anchors often have "morals clauses" in their contract, which controls their behaviour so they don't harm the stations reputation. For instance, a clause may restrict an anchors ability to campaign for a political candidate for participate in a pro-life rally, simply because they want them to appear neutral.

Those so-called "morals clauses" can also go as far as to say what cities you can or can not visit, even on vacation. A couple years back when Roanoke, Virginia's WSLS-TV had fired a weatherman over a "morals clause violation", soon after that it came out that WSLS actually had a list of cities where their employees were NOT allowed to visit-per morals clause. Visit them..you may be fired. The cities on the "banned" list included Las Vegas,Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Indianapolis, Denver and Columbus ( Ohio ). The reason why WSLS had the last four cities on the list was because Denver, Dallas, Indianapolis and Columbus all still had gay bathhouses within their city limits for which WSLS had objected to.

 

[firepoint525]

I remember Christine Kraft. I wonder if she was one of those who used her "looks" to get ahead, then sued when that no longer worked for her. I'm wondering if Marny Stanier (I think that's her name), formerly of the Weather Channel, did the same thing.

 

[Silkie]

Anchors often have "morals clauses" in their contract, which controls their behaviour so they don't harm the stations reputation. For instance, a clause may restrict an anchors ability to campaign for a political candidate for participate in a pro-life rally, simply because they want them to appear neutral.

Those so-called "morals clauses" can also go as far as to say what cities you can or can not visit, even on vacation. A couple years back when Roanoke, Virginia's WSLS-TV had fired a weatherman over a "morals clause violation", soon after that it came out that WSLS actually had a list of cities where their employees were NOT allowed to visit-per morals clause. Visit them..you may be fired. The cities on the "banned" list included Las Vegas,Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Indianapolis, Denver and Columbus ( Ohio ). The reason why WSLS had the last four cities on the list was because Denver, Dallas, Indianapolis and Columbus all still had gay bathhouses within their city limits for which WSLS had objected to.

If I am not mistaken they were called "Turkish Baths". I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken. :-X