Judge Denies ESPN's Motions to Toss Portion of Adrienne Lawrence's Sex Harassment Lawsuit
The judge did order the attorneys to remove portions of the lawsuit that were pulled from a book detailing sexual harassment at the network going back to the 1970s.
December 10, 2018 at 03:13 PM
4 minute read
Adrienne Lawrence's sexual harassment lawsuit against ESPN cleared a preliminary legal hurdle in Connecticut Thursday after a judge rejected a motion to dismiss, and a motion for sanctions.
Judge Stefan Underhill denied ESPN's motion for sanctions over publication of Lawrence's sexual harassment claims, and denied ESPN's motion to dismiss the false light claim for failure to state a claim. Underhill announced his ruling in a 48-minute conference call with attorneys for ESPN and Lawrence.
The judge did say that certain allegations made in the March lawsuit were not relevant and ordered those portions removed. Those passages dealt with alleged inappropriate conduct at the network from the 1970s to 1990s.
Underhill also gave both sides until Dec. 26 to submit a discovery schedule.
Lawrence, a former attorney herself who is now a freelancer for Madden NFL, leveled claims against ESPN stating the network tried to damage her credibility after she accused SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross of sexual harassment.
Lawrence's false light claims stated ESPN tried to hurt Lawrence's reputation by “stating aloud or otherwise publishing statements to third parties that intentionally or recklessly impugned plaintiff's character, judgment and integrity.” The false light claims also state ESPN “made the implications and misleading statements about plaintiff intentionally or with reckless disregard to its offensiveness.”
Specifically, Lawrence claims in her lawsuit that the network “used bots and fake social media accounts to promote the fraudulent text messages (allegedly sent between Lawrence and Buccigross), to attack Ms. Lawrence and spread vile commentary about her.”
Patrick Shea, a Paul Hastings partner representing ESPN, said Monday he's not surprised the motion for sanctions were denied since Underhill rarely grants them. “He has very high standards for what he considers to be sanctionable actions and that was not met by either party,” Shea said.
Shea, representing ESPN along with colleague Raymond Bertrand, said the ruling to remove certain passages from the lawsuit is important since those items were pulled from a book outlining often crude behavior at ESPN. The portions were included in the lawsuit in an attempt to show there was a long history of sex discrimination and harassment at the network going back four decades.
“The judge said [the revised complaint] would be limited to matters that occurred within five years of her hiring date, which, obviously, we regard as important,” Shea said.
Jeanne Christensen, a partner with New York City-based Wigdor, LLP and one of Lawrence's three attorneys with that firm, said ESPN delayed a small portion of the case in its attempt to dismiss the false light claim.
“They could have jumped into litigation and started discovery,”Christensen said. “There were nine causes of action and ESPN did not challenge eight of them.”
The nine causes of action cited in the lawsuit include sexual discrimination and harassment, negligent supervision, creating a hostile work environment, aiding and abetting, and retaliation.
Christensen said the removal of the book excerpts will not have a negative impact on Lawrence's claims.
No one from ESPN's media relations team responded to a request for comment.
Before joining ESPN, Lawrence was employed at McGuireWoods in Washington, D.C., and Greenberg Traurig in New York City. Lawrence had previously clerked for Judge Eric Washington at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was an associate at Arent Fox. She also once taught criminal and tort law at Strayer University. Lawrence earned her law degree from George Washington University Law School in 2008.
Assisting Christensen are colleagues Michael Willemin and Bryan Arbeit.
Related Articles:
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 AllArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Trending Stories
- 1Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 2Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 3Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 4Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 5Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
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