Judge Rules for ESPN on Most Claims in Discrimination Suit by Fired Associate Producer
A federal judge has largely ruled for ESPN in a case by a former associate producer who claimed she was fired because she was a woman, a minority and for using the Family and Medical Leave Act. The judge found for ESPN on most claims while finding for the employee on discrimination based on race, color and national origin.
October 26, 2018 at 04:17 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge has issued a mixed ruling on a lawsuit filed by a former ESPN associate producer who claimed the sports network discriminated against her because she is a woman and retaliated against her for taking advantage of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
In his ruling handed down Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Shea of Connecticut dismissed most of the claims leveled by Rachel Pineda in a February lawsuit. The judge dismissed her FMLA claim and her Title VII claim related to sex discrimination, the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Shea said Pineda's claim for discrimination based on race, color and national origin may proceed.
Pineda, a Terryville resident, filed several claims against ESPN and management saying she wasn't treated properly and, in many cases, not talked to with respect. Pineda was seeking $2.5 million in damages, $100,000 in lost wages and $200,000 for a college scholarship for her young son for “his pain and suffering and to compensate his father for my loss of income.”
Shea let stand the complaint related to discrimination based on race, noting Pineda, who is Hispanic, was allegedly told by a manager she should “go to Deportes,” which is the network's Spanish-speaking network. That comment, the judge wrote, “could be read to suggest hostility to Hispanic employees by suggesting they work for Spanish-speaking networks, and was directly connected to Pineda's performance during her probationary period.”
In her lawsuit, Pineda said she was fired in April 2016 “over the phone after being interrogated as to when I was coming in, when I explained that the phone meeting had been planned for over a month and I had already made child care and transportation arrangements for the day.” In her suit, Pineda said she was promised more substantial assignments by the network, but said, “I believe that I was lied to about what I was being asked to do at ESPN, and I believe I was retaliated against and wrongly terminated” based on ethnicity and gender, among other things.
Pineda claims management ridiculed her regarding her status as a single mother. In one case, she said, she was told by a human resources representative that breast-feeding mothers “needed to be watched, and that we should only be allowed to sign up for pre-scheduled 20-minute intervals in a private, locked, one-person booth. Otherwise we take up too much time and it can't be known what we are actually doing. [One defendant] also disapproved of my child being brought to the mother's room to be fed, [saying] that it should only be used for pumping, not feeding.”
Shea, though, said Pineda never states a specific Title VII claim for employment discrimination on the basis of sex. He said Pineda cannot show the breast-feeding comments had anything to do with her termination. Pineda did allege she had “rape-related” post-traumatic stress disorder, stemming from an assault on her when she was in college.
Shea wrote in his decision: “Although Pineda obliquely references PTSD symptoms and that certain actions by ESPN triggered her PTSD, she does not specify what symptoms she experienced and how those symptoms impacted her ability to perform her job as an associate producer.”
Shea also found Pineda was not able to prove retaliation related to her FMLA claim. The judge noted that plaintiff's performance review evaluation took place more than four months after her leave, and that she was fired nine months later.
Pineda, who acted as her own attorney, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Late Friday, Josh Krulewitz, ESPN's vice president of communications, told the Connecticut Law Tribune that the company would be declining comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen Inadvertent Disclosures Happen at a Law Firm, Who’s Responsible?
'Extremely Troubling:' Trump Defense Team Attacks Prosecutor's Novel Arguments Against Dismissing Case
Investors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250