• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Brenda Matthews vs. Clear Channel - go brenda!!!

Deja vu. Nine years ago, the exact same thing happened to my wife. Except that she was encouraged to find another full time slot - and then when she did, they enforced the non-compete so she couldn't take it.

And I remember quite clearly the circumstances under which those non-competes were signed: do it today or lose your job.

The only thing that's changed is the GM, who was then Jenny Sue Rhodes.

Go, Brenda! Fight it.
 
Good Luck Brenda!

My ol' home state of Illinois eventually did away with the non competes. Like to see them done away with here!

In the past I had heard of the NC being nullified if a person had been terminated...the right to work could not be easily restricted then...but if the person left on their own then it could. Brenda's circumstance is interesting to see this challenged...because of CC reducing her role and hours etc. Another thing...remember the days of signing the payloa/plugola documents...how they were kept updated and not roll over from one year to the next or one company to another...I wonder if the same thing applies to Brenda's circumstance (contract). Just my two cents.
 
It would be interesting to know if there's basis here for a class-action suit.

Or, a pattern of gender discrimination.

Know a good lawyer, Brenda?
 
Brenda...

Fight it girl! i tried to fight mine... but i could not hire an expensive lawyer..i did work for Cheap Channel after all...

it amazes me how a company can treat loyal employees like dirt and get away with it. just a shame to see so many talented people cast aside like yesterdays garbage.

But you are a consummate professional and a very classy lady. You will come out better off...

Best of luck to you and God Bless You...
 
Hello everyone..Brenda here.

Thanks for all the notes of support! I'm not taking this lying down, believe me. Here's what I wrote to Scott Maxwell, who generously printed it on-line in the Sentinel yesterday:

After almost 12 years and almost 9 at Magic, I was downsized as Clear Channel cut costs and eliminated my full-time mid-day position back in early November. I became part-time as of 1/1/08, making a fraction of what I used to. Still, I chose to stay on and try to make things work.

Another opportunity came up and a live and full-time position was offered to me. I'm excited about the change, and decided to accept it and resigned from Clear Channel Friday afternoon. I was saying (a very generic, but heartfelt) goodbye on the air, a minute after I told Ken Payne.

Now, Linda Byrd, GM at CC, is trying to hold me to an almost 12 year old non-compete that I supposedly signed back in 1996 when I started with She 100.3 and Paxon. That's 2 companies and 3 radio stations ago. and remember, also, I just became a part-time employee. When I "signed" this, I was full-time. This non-compete, according to her, keeps me from working in this market for 6 months.

Clear Channel has eliminated my full-time position. They had me voice tracking the same position for 10k a year (I could qualify for food stamps!). It was a win-win for them! They don't want pay me a full time salary - but yet, they're trying to prevent me from leaving and going elsewhere and making a decent wage. I need to, and deserve to, make a living and to work in my chosen field.
 
A few observations:

A. there are ways to remedy this process, taking the fight public almost always being the least effective method. Attempting to litigate this in the court of public opinion nearly always guarantees the company's heels get dug in deeper. And, I'd guess they have more lawyers.
B. the non-compete could (and should) have been re-negotiated during the transition from fulltime to parttime. That was likely the most ripe opportunity to get that done.
C. Whether it was agreed to 12 days or 12 years ago is moot. If it is part of a current deal, it is enforceable.

Sorry.
 
A few observations of my own:

a) I'll agree going public is probably not a good move, but she must feel her back is against the wall on this.
b) I believe when the transition from FT to PT was made, the non-compete went away. I can't speak for Brenda, of course, but I'm sure she made an assuption that once her status changed from FT to PT, she was "starting over." Fresh. Everything changed -- hours, pay, benefits. I believe it was up to CC to make her sign a new NC, not up to her to negotiate out of it. Who holds PT jocks to non-competes when they have an offer to be FT, anyway?
c) I'm not sure it is enforceable, sorry. These things have been tossed out in courts around the country. Most jocks, though, are too afraid of being blackballed to go to court, so they deal with it.

I've never understood a company that says, "I don't want you, but I don't want anyone else to have you, either."
 
It would seem that the original terms of the agreement were changed, and therefore the agreement has become null and void. By changing ones job description or status the non-compete which was signed while being a full time employee is only enforceable as long as that employee remains full time. They changed the terms of the agreement, so the non-compete goes away. After all, I'm sure that your insurance and other (limited) benefits changed, so why not the non-compete?

Besides, another way to look at it, if you weren't valuable enough for them to keep you, why should they feel threatened if you go somewhere else? (This is in no way a real reflection of your talent, I'm just looking at the situation from a different angle).

I say screw 'em! I don't think that they'd get a lot of sympathy in court, especially in front of a jury!
 
I wonder if a non-compete contract signed under duress - i.e., sign it today or you lose your job - would even hold up in court. I remember that the employees had no time to consult an attorney.

From Wikipedia:

The Elements of Economic Duress:
1. Wrongful or improper threat: No precise definition of what is wrongful or improper. Examples include: morally wrong, criminal, or tortuous conduct; one that is a threat to breach a contract "in bad faith" or threaten to withhold an admitted debt "in bad faith."
2. Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.
3. The threat actually induces the making of the contract. This is a subjective standard, and takes into account the victim's age, their background (especially their education), relationship of the parties, and the ability to receive advice.
4. The other party caused the financial distress. The majority opinion is that the other party must have caused the distress, while the minority opinion allows them to merely take advantage of the distress.
 
Brenda just might have an opening. Outside of enlightened states such as MA, WA and CA which have done away with non-competes in whole or in part there are now precedents in three states I can find of radio personnel in similar situations where judges have ruled the non-compete either a restraint of free trade or as being void in such circumstances and allowed the talent to move on.
 
To borrow a line from Moti the station manager - Disc jockeys are dogs. Your job is to make them
fetch, eh? Private Parts (1997)
 
Well, at least it gives more time to pray that their kids die...oh, wait...their the christains, right...
 
>>a) I'll agree going public is probably not a good move, but she must feel her back is against the wall on this.<<

What is the downside of going public? Is she supposed to fear that Clear Channel might get mad? They've already shot their only bullet. There's nothing else they can do to her. No company likes bad publicity, least of all Clear Channel. I don't care how clear the contract is, judges are notoriously capricious in matters of non-competes. The odds are huge that if this gets in front of a judge, he or she will not only rule against Clear Channel, the ruling will be accompanied by an angry lecture. In most cases, non-competes are simply anti-competitive tools designed to suppress wages. A pox on companies that abuse them.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom