Excerpted from a Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP Blog by Cara Yates Crotty
To borrow from Ron Burgundy, “that de-escalated quickly.”
Jeff Vaughn was a veteran news anchor at two CBS affiliates in Los Angeles. When his contract was terminated and he was replaced with a Black news anchor, he alleged he was discriminated against because he was white.
In a detailed analysis of his claim, Judge Hernan D. Vera from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that “there is no ‘there’ there to Plaintiff’s claims” and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
Vaughn’s story
Mr. Vaughn had 30 years of experience in journalism. When his employer ended his contract, he asserted claims for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
In support of his claims, Mr. Vaughn highlighted various employment practices that he claimed demonstrated a discriminatory motive:
- A “diverse slate policy” that required the pool of candidates considered to include at least one woman and one person of color.
- Hiring, promotion, and attrition targets that aimed to increase diversity for senior vice president and vice president roles.
- The desire for anchors to better “reflect” the diverse community.
In addition, Mr. Vaughn alleged that a manager compared him with Ron Burgundy, the character played by Will Ferrell in the 2004 movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Mr. Vaughn asserted that this comparison was an obvious reference to “me, as the white man standing in the way of their goal for increased diversity.”
Finally, Mr. Vaughn alleged that his replacement by a Black anchor further demonstrated that he was terminated because of his race.
The employer’s story
The defendants countered Mr. Vaughn’s claims with criticism of his performance from management and audience alike. Mr. Vaughn allegedly:
- Did not resonate with the audience;
- Was unable get through scripts without flubbing;
- Emphasized the wrong words in his delivery;
- Ranked last in viewer recognition;
- Was unable to read the teleprompter and mispronounced words.
The court’s finale
Judge Vera concluded that years of documented poor performance showed that the defendants had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Mr. Vaughn’s contract that was not a pretext for discrimination:
Same-actor inference defeats claim. The people who terminated Mr. Vaughn’s contract also signed or extended his contract four times when there was no obligation to do so.
Replacement by Black anchor, in itself, is not enough. The “mere fact” that Mr. Vaughn’s replacement was Black did not support an inference that race was a motivating factor, especially considering that offers and overtures were made to white candidates.
Diversity initiatives were not unlawful. The mere existence of diversity initiatives, such as the diverse slate policy, was not enough to create an inference of discrimination. Judge Vera noted that the defendants had “no numerical goals, mandates, targets, or quotas applicable to the hiring, retention, or promotion of news anchors.” The diversity-related targets that applied to SVP and VP roles specifically did not apply to anchors.
“Ron Burgundy” reference was not discriminatory. According to Judge Vera, “No reasonable juror (or at least one who has actually seen the movie Anchorman) could find that referring to Vaughn as Ron Burgundy was necessarily a reference to his race.”
Diverse slate policies: Proceed with caution!
This case shows that an employer’s efforts to create and support a diverse workforce are typically not – by themselves – sufficient to prove discrimination.
That said, employers should still approach diverse slate policies with caution. It’s also important to note that Mr. Vaughn’s case involved alleged discrimination in termination, not hiring. Thus, the diverse slate policy was not directly implicated.
Title VII prohibits, among other things, employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee, because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Depending on how it is implemented, a diverse slate policy could “segregate” or “classify” individuals base on race, and in the zero-sum outcome of hiring decisions, may adversely affect individuals because of race.
For the full story, please click here.