ESPN Wins 'Close Call' 1st Round, But Pro Se Plaintiff Has Now Lawyered Up
In a Friday afternoon ruling, a Connecticut federal judge has sided with ESPN with regard to racial discrimination claims a fired associate producer made against the sports network.
November 25, 2019 at 04:21 PM
4 minute read
Calling it a "close call," a federal judge in Connecticut ruled in favor of sports broadcaster ESPN Inc. and its corporate parents—Hearst Communications Inc. and The Walt Disney Co.—in a former associate producer's race discrimination lawsuit.
But U.S. District Judge Michael Shea left the door open for a second shot by plaintiff Rachel Pineda, who alleged an ESPN manager told her to "go to Deportes," which is the company's Spanish network, with her ideas for coverage.
ESPN fired Pineda in April 2016 for not successfully completing a company performance improvement plan. Pineda sued, alleging wrongful termination and race discrimination. She is seeking $2.5 million in damages, $100,000 in lost wages, and $200,000 to fund a college scholarship for her son for "his pain and suffering and to compensate his father for my loss of income."
Shea had dismissed several counts that Pineda had leveled against the network in October 2018. They included claims of sex discrimination and alleged violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. At the time, Shea had let the race discrimination portion of the suit remain, and has now allowed an amended complaint from Pineda, who was initially representing herself in court, but has since hired an attorney. The judge gave the plaintiff and her counsel 21 days to amend the complaint.
"Ultimately, I find that the plaintiff has failed to plead enough facts to make it plausible that discrimination on the basis of her Hispanic ethnicity was a motivating factor in her termination," the judge wrote in his 12-page ruling. "Nonetheless, it is a close call."
Shea said he was looking for Pineda's counsel to file an amended complaint that gave "more facts about the content" of the allegedly discriminatory remarks from department manager Valerie Gordon, and "any connection to [Pineda's] firing, to nudge the claim across the plausibility line."
"We will be filing an amended complaint," Pineda's lawyer, Waterbury-based solo practitioner Michelle Holmes, said Monday. "As Rachel was originally pro se, I think I can cull together a complaint that more articulates her discrimination claims. But there is still an opportunity for resolution, and we are exploring those opportunities."
Representing ESPN are attorneys Raymond Bertrand and James De Haan, both with the San Diego, California, offices of Paul Hastings. Both attorneys declined to comment on the case Monday.
Mike Soltys, an ESPN representative, also declined to comment on the matter.
Shea ruled last year against Pineda's various claims not related to race discrimination. They included claims from the former employee that management ridiculed her status as a single mother.
As it relates to racial discrimination, Shea noted that Pineda claims the network "continues to frame the experience of Latinos in America as an immigrant story, rather than including voices from third, fourth, or more generation American-Hispanics." She alleged "ESPN actively works to enforce hatred of immigrants, and continuously illustrates the narrative of non-white Americans as being 'others,' while also not giving the same opportunities to Hispanics that are provided to white employees."
Pineda also claimed to have had negative encounters, which she attributes to her race, with co-workers. In one such incident, she claimed she was asked if she worked in the cafeteria. She further claimed a supervisor "mocked racial categories that are used to describe ethnic minorities in the United States, including a comment in which he identified himself as a 'generic white male producer."'
But these allegations, as presented, fell short.
"Plaintiff does not specify when any of these events occurred," the judge wrote. The allegations in the pleading were "insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, and because they are so vague and devoid of any apparent connection to plaintiff of her termination, they add nothing to plaintiff's few specific factual allegations."
Read more:
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending 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