Campbell v. Merdith Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-2275-JAR.,00-2275-JAR. |
| Parties | Charles CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Charles Campbell, Scottsdale, AZ, Pro se.
Lowell W. Finson, Peter J. Chung, Stephen A. Jenkins, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiff.
Robert W. McKinley, Lathrop & Gage L.C, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 128). Charles Campbell ("Plaintiff) relies on the following theories of recovery: age discrimination in violation of the ADEA; hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII; disability discrimination in violation of the ADA; and retaliation in violation of the ADEA, Title VII, and the ADA.
For purposes of this motion, the following relevant facts are uncontroverted. Plaintiff was hired by Meredith Corporation ("Defendant") in November 1971. Since 1992, Plaintiff has worked as a news editor for Defendant at KCTV. At all relevant times, the other two news editors were Ruth Naranjo and Charlene Pryor.
On May 16, 1995, Plaintiff received a letter from KCTVs General Manager, advising him that This correspondence closes by saying "[y]ou must correct others' perceptions and impressions of your demeanor, or you will be subject to further discipline—up to and including discharge." In January 1999, Plaintiff informed KCTV management that Ruth Naranjo, had "a particular dislike for" Plaintiff, and that Ms. Naranjo had previously made a false accusation that Plaintiff had "swore at her." In a letter to Plaintiff dated February 16, 1999, KCTVs News Director advised Plaintiff that some employees were uncomfortable or even afraid to work with him.
On March 12, 1999, Plaintiff approached Ms. Naranjo as she was preparing to leave for the day and said "who are you going to fuck over this weekend." Plaintiff only had a professional relationship with Ms. Naranjo and concedes that his comments to her were rude. Ms. Naranjo did not believe Plaintiff was joking, and she felt antagonized, intimidated, stressed, violated, and concerned for the people around her. Ms. Naranjo did not reply to Plaintiff and did not have any further interaction with him that day. Ms. Naranjo did not leave the building after the incident because she feared for her safety. In fact, Ms. Naranjo told Mr. Poduska, KCTVs Business Manager, that she felt physically intimidated by Plaintiffs actions.
When Plaintiff returned to work he was instructed to report to Mr. Poduska's office. At that time, Plaintiff met with Mr. Poduska and with Ms. Watson, the Assistant News Manager, and was informed they were investigating a complaint filed by Ms. Naranjo concerning certain comments Plaintiff allegedly made to Ms. Naranjo. Plaintiff denied making the alleged comments to Ms. Naranjo and indicated he did not know why she would make the allegation. Plaintiff now concedes that
After being interviewed by Mr. Poduska and Ms. Watson, Plaintiff
After the meeting with Mr. Poduska, Plaintiff contacted Charlene Pryor, another news editor who had overheard Plaintiffs comments, and said "if you don't tell them I was kidding, I'm going to be terminated." Pryor testified that:
He said, they are going to fire me, going to fire me, and I go, why, and he said, they said that I said, who are you going to fuck over this weekend. I didn't say that. I said Charlie, I heard you say it twice, and he said, well, I meant it as a joke, and I said, if you meant it as a joke, then tell them you meant it as a joke. He says, well, you can tell them I didn't say it. You have to tell them I didn't say that, and I said, I'm not going to lie. I heard what you said. Plaintiff also contacted Ms. Naranjo and said "Ruth, they are going to terminate me, you know I was kidding, or something like that."
Mr. Poduska called and told Plaintiff not to discuss the matter with any other employees to avoid skewing the investigation. Plaintiff told Mr. Poduska that he would talk to anyone he wanted to. Plaintiff testified Plaintiff believes that
Plaintiff testified that on the way to his car after Poduska's phone call directing Plaintiff to not discuss the incident, he saw a couple of photographers on break and talked to them about the situation, and told them "I did something probably that I would be terminated for." Plaintiff also confronted Ms. Naranjo and Ms. Watson intervened and reminded Plaintiff that he was not supposed to discuss the issue with Ms. Naranjo. Ms. Watson then asked Plaintiff to leave the building.
Defendant terminated Plaintiff on or about March 16, 1999. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was discharged for using the "F" word in a threatening manner to another employee and for disobeying the manager's order to not speak with the employees or interfere with their investigation. Plaintiff is not aware of any other employee that has committed the same violations and been disciplined less severely.
No previous employee had been terminated for the use of profane or obscene language. Use of profane language was normal in the newsroom. Many people in the newsroom joked with each other using profane language. Ms. Naranjo had previously called Plaintiff a "prick" when he pronounced her prior last name, "Horine," as "Hor (pause) ine." Plaintiff is only aware of four employees who had used the "F" word in the work place. Two of these four employees were Plaintiffs peers, news editors Naranjo and Pryor. The other two employees were Don North, the News Director, and Wendall Anschutz, the television news anchor.
While Plaintiff has no specific recollection of the incidents when Ms. Naranjo, Mr. North, or Ms. Pryor used the "F" word; he recalled Anschutz using the "F" word in conversations with Plaintiff in 1996 and 1999. One of the conversations involved Anschutz stating "don't ever fucking talk to me again." Plaintiff did not report the 1996 incident to any of Defendant's managers; and Plaintiff is not aware of any employee, manager or supervisor of Defendant that heard Mr. Anschutz use the "F" word. Plaintiff allegedly complained to Mr. North about the 1999 incident of Mr. Anschutz using the "F" word. Plaintiff does not know if Mr. North discussed the incident with Mr. Anschutz, but Plaintiff is not aware of any other instances where Mr. Anschutz has used the "F" word.
Prior to Plaintiffs termination, no newsroom employee had been terminated for "threatening or intimidating behavior" or "insubordination." Plaintiff had previously been the victim of an "abusive" or "very excitable" yelling incident by an on-duty supervisor, who was not terminated for such conduct. In a January 1999 letter to Don North, Plaintiff also complained of being shouted at and physically threatened in the newsroom by a producer. And, after Defendant terminated Plaintiff, a KCTV chyron operator was subjected to intimidating and domineering behavior from a KCTV engineer on the news set, culminating in an incident where the engineer pulled a headset off the camera operator's head. KCTV management was aware of the incident and investigated, but merely issued a warning to the engineer rather than a termination.
At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was the oldest of three full-time video editors at KCTV. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was 70 years old, Ms. Naranjo was 49 years old, and Ms. Pryor was 51 years old. After Defendant terminated Plaintiff, Ms. Pryor and Ms. Naranjo continued to work for Defendant as full-time editors. Defendant did not hire a third full time editor, but relied on these two full-time editors, as well as assistance from part-time editors and photographers.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discharged him because of his age, since he In fact, Plaintiff alleges that before he was terminated he complained to management about age discrimination. Plaintiff stated that in January 1999 he complained about an incident that had occurred five years earlier, in 1994, "in which I was denied leave to attend a wake of my best friend." Plaintiff also alleges he made "a general complaint about working nights for many years, including ending with the rotating schedule which I also thought was discriminatory, age discriminatory." But, Plaintiff concedes that the rotating schedule began in 1996 and in fact provided more opportunities for him to work a better shift. And, although alleging that his seniority over Ms. Naranjo and Ms. Pryor was not taken into account, Plaintiff admits that all three were treated the same under the rotating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ney v. City of Hoisington, Kan.
...supervisors complained about her FMLA leave, including emails written by her supervisors). 54. E.g., Campbell v. Meredith Corp., 260 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105-06 (D.Kan.2003). 55. Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1232 (10th 56. Rivera v. City & County of Denver, 365 F.3d 9......
-
Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kan.
...plaintiff attempts to attribute the email to the sentiments of Berroth, it is inadmissible hearsay. 135. E.g., Campbell v. Meredith Corp., 260 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105-06 (D.Kan.2003). 136. While merit increases appear to be based on a monthly evaluation, daily performance reports were sent to ......
-
Elrod v. Swanson
...969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 940, 113 S.Ct. 1336, 122 L.Ed.2d 720 (1993); Campbell v. Meredith Corp., 260 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1097 n. 10 (D.Kan.2003). 48. Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1521 (10th 49. 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir.2004). 50. Id. at 1189. 51. ___ U......
-
Calia v. Werholtz
...v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 940, 113 S.Ct. 1336, 122 L.Ed.2d 720 (1993); Campbell v. Meredith Corp., 260 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1097 a 10 26. Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1521 (10th Cir.1992). 27. D. Kan. 56.1(a) provides that "[a]ll material fac......