Plaintiff Michael Brooks sued defendant Scripps Media Inc., doing business as KJRH-TV, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract. Before the court is Defendant Scripps Media’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Michael Brooks was hired by KJRH-TV as a news anchor in August 2019 under a three-year contract. In October 2021, KJRH terminated Brooks’ employment, citing violations of the company’s Code of Conduct. Brooks alleges that the real reason for his termination was discrimination based on his sexual orientation.
The station’s general manager, Amy Calvert, had previously expressed concerns about Brooks’ sexual orientation potentially impacting the station negatively. During an investigation leading to Brooks’ termination, Calvert made disparaging comments about Brooks’ lifestyle. The investigation, conducted by KJRH’s Employee Relations Director Katie Wilson, focused on allegations that Brooks created a fake dating app profile to gather information on his news director and withheld information during the investigation.
Legal Analysis
Discrimination Claim: The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze Brooks’ discrimination claim. It found that Brooks established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he belonged to a protected class, suffered an adverse employment action, and the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination.
KJRH provided four non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Brooks. However, the court found evidence that could allow a jury to conclude these reasons were pretextual. The court noted inconsistencies in KJRH’s stated reasons for termination, the subjective nature of some allegations, and potential bias in the investigation process.
Breach of Contract Claim: The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding that a jury could potentially determine KJRH’s decision was the product of discriminatory animus rather than a legitimate exercise of its contractual rights.
Damages: The court did not address KJRH’s arguments regarding damages, as it denied summary judgment on the underlying claims.
The court denied KJRH’s motion for summary judgment on both the discrimination and breach of contract claims, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Schrag on Law 