Changes At 96.9 In A Few Days ?

[Dark Knight]

Perhaps I should have said "contractually" rather than legally. Howie signed an agreement giving Entercom the right to match any offer he presents them with within a certain time frame. If they elected to do so, Howie would then be obligated to continue his employment at Entercom under those terms. (Thus the indentured servitude at $800K for 25 hours a week of work - man, I'd take that in a heartbeat.)

In any event, as he was contractually obligated to do, Howie presented Entercom with an offer. Entercom elected to match the offer. Howie filed suit. Until the suit is adjudicated, the case for irreparable harm to Entercom is at least debatable, and if he were to lose after the fact, the potential damages that Howie and Greater Media are susceptible to would be significant. Thus Howie will either choose not to start or he will likely be enjoined from starting at WTKK on 9/20.

 

[raccoonradio]

True, though I guess he passed along the word to his secretary (Jessica Heslam of the Herald ) that he
intended to start at WTKK the day after he leaves WRKO. Or will he stay on at 'RKO (forced to)
for now...

 

[sp113]

Perhaps I should have said "contractually" rather than legally. Howie signed an agreement giving Entercom the right to match any offer he presents them with within a certain time frame. If they elected to do so, Howie would then be obligated to continue his employment at Entercom under those terms.

Well, indentured servitude has been illegal for a long time.

In any event....you can't give away or "sign away" your civil rights.

The "right to match" is part of the "covenant not to compete". If it wasn't illegal already, the there is a specific Massachusetts law (C149, Sect 186) that reinforces it.....as is anything that restricts the employee from seeking employment after the expiration of the contract.

Until the suit is adjudicated, the case for irreparable harm to Entercom is at least debatable, and if he were to lose after the fact, the potential damages that Howie and Greater Media are susceptible to would be significant. Thus Howie will either choose not to start or he will likely be enjoined from starting at WTKK on 9/20.

In a liberal state like Massachusetts the courts have been more apt to find in favor of the employee. Thats the history of employment law in the state of Massachusetts.

What would be interesting is to see if Howie can claim damages from Entercom's "interference" and get a big settlement on top of the big salary. That would be a double-whammy for Entercom.

Lastly, you mentioned "potential damages to Greater Media"....

Greater Media is not named in any lawsuit. Entercom's legal wranglings are with Howie Carr individually and not Greater Media. GM has nothing to lose in this situation.

From what I hear Howie is set to go on the air as planned. His lawyers have advised him he is free to take to the air. (Although I heard he wanted to start 11/1...taking a couple of weeks off after RKO.)

If Entercom had any claim...they would be asking a judge for an injunction to keep him off the air. They haven't.

It appears Entercom is just trying to throw obstacles in the way....to try to delay the inevitable.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>11/1.

10/1, you mean.

>>His lawyers have advised him he is free to take to the air.

interesting--no mention yet on the site and no direct mention on WTKK, if so, but maybe after Sept 19
they will do so--esp. if he does indeed start on the 20th!

 

[Dark Knight]

I really can't get into specifics, but I know from sources extremely close to the situation that Greater Media has significant exposure here above and beyond any legal fees they may be covering for Howie. I also would not rule out any legal action on Entercom's part, whether that amounts to an injunction against Howie or a damages suit against Greater Media or both.

Both sides believe their case has merit, or it wouldn't be going this far. Hence my original assertion that Howie will not be on anyone's air after 9/19. Maybe if it becomes apparent that there is no legal resolution in sight both parties might arrive at a compromise that would allow Howie to move around the end of the year.

Right-to-match is not necessarily unenforceable. It exists in most sports' collective bargaining agreements and in the case of big money talent deals like this, part of what the employer is paying for is the ability to ensure their incumbency by having the last bite at the apple.

 

[sp113]

I really can't get into specifics, but I know from sources extremely close to the situation that Greater Media has significant exposure here.

Well, same for me...I can't go into specifics either...but my sources tell me that right now there is zero exposure for Gr. Media. They offerred Howie a job...and agree to pay him if/when he is on the air performing said job. What exposure?

I also would not rule out any legal action on Entercom's part, whether that amounts to an injunction against Howie or a damages suit against Greater Media or both.

Well, why haven't they?

Second, you can bring suit against anyone for anything.....even if you don't like the part in their hair. The question is...will the claim stand up.

Again, Howie could seek damages from Entercom. Gr. Media could seek damages for interference from Entercom.

Lawsuits can go on till infinity from ALL sides. I think everyone will realize it's not in their best interest to run up the legal bills....and everyone will just drop it.

Both sides believe their case has merit, or it wouldn't be going this far. Hence my original assertion that Howie will not be on anyone's air after 9/19.

How far has it gone? There are no injunctions...no court dates...nothing is happenning on the legal front.

Right-to-match is not necessarily unenforceable. It exists in most sports' collective bargaining agreements and in the case of big money talent deals like this, part of what the employer is paying for is the ability to ensure their incumbency by having the last bite at the apple.

In effect, the right to match forces someone to work for someone they don't want to.

No court would require someone to work for an employer they don't want to work for.

Again, the "right to match" interferes/limits an employees right to employment *after* the contract has expired...and according to Mass Genral Law, is not allowed.

It exists in most sports' collective bargaining agreements and in the case of big money talent deals like this, part of what the employer is paying for is the ability to ensure their incumbency by having the last bite at the apple.

First, "Sports Collective bargaining agrrements" are not protected by Massachusetts General Law....as are radio employees.

part of what the employer is paying for is the ability to ensure their incumbency by having the last bite at the apple.

Oh, I don't doubt the reason its there. Employers will attempt to retain every angle they can.

Second, You might recall "Williams vs. Richmond Brothers" where the talent knowingly signed a non-compete deal that included 500 miles/5 years. Even though both parties signed it knowingly, the Mass SJC found that to be unenforceable.