Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Hicks v. KNTV Television (Cal. Ct. App. - March 5, 2008)

KNTV (NBC 11) says to Brad Hicks: "You were fine as an anchor when we were just in Salinas/Monterey. But now that we're in San Jose/Oakland/San Francisco, you're fired."

Brad responds: "You just want to replace me as anchor because I'm white. And hired an African-American to replace me. I'm suing. And moving to Milwaukee."

Justice Premo says: "There's no evidence of discrimination. And you really are somewhat aloof as an anchor, Brad. Summary judgment for KNTV affirmed."

P.S. - There's lot about what Justice Premo says that makes sense. But I disagree with the first paragraph on page 15, which reads: "Plaintiff contends that the station’s Web site, which referred to Janice Edwards as an anchor, shows how desperate defendants were to give the impression that the station was more diverse than it was. The argument is not rational. Edwards was employed by KNTV, there was no misrepresentation in that. We cannot fathom how misidentifying her as an anchor on the Web site would have advanced the station’s alleged desire to have an African-American anchor on the air. The inference plaintiff would have us draw from this evidence is simply not reasonable." I think that's some evidence, and not an "irrational" argument. It may or may not, when combined with the other stuff, be sufficient to get to a jury. But I understand the contention, and in an appropriate setting might indeed raise an inference of deliberate discrimination.