Claybrooks v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:12–cv–00388.
• Parties: Nathaniel CLAYBROOKS and Christopher Johnson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., and Michael Fleiss, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

898 F.Supp.2d 986

Nathaniel CLAYBROOKS and Christopher Johnson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., and Michael Fleiss, Defendants.

Case No. 3:12–cv–00388.

United States District Court,

M.D. Tennessee,

Nashville Division.

Oct. 15, 2012.

Byron R. Perkins, Terrinell Lyons, Perkins–Law, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Cyrus Mehri, Michael P. Lieder, Zachary W. Best, Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Washington, DC, George Edward Barrett, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston, LLC, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs.

Adam Levin, Seth E. Pierce, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Ryan A. Kurtz, Miller & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Shelby R. Grubbs, Miller & Martin, Chattanooga, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.

Pending before the court are several motions relating to the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and choice of venue. The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Docket No. 38) and an Alternative Motion to Strike Request for Injunctive Relief and Class Allegations (Docket No. 45), to which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated Response in opposition to both motions (Docket No. 84), and the defendants filed separate Replies thereto (Docket Nos. 91 (Motion to Dismiss) and 93 (Motion to Strike)).¹ The defendants have also filed a Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket No. 59), which is not yet fully briefed and with respect to which the parties have engaged in venue-specific discovery. ( See Docket Nos. 86, 99, 100.) ²

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, the remaining motions will be denied as moot, and the plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND³

I. The Shows at Issue and the Plaintiffs' Associated Discrimination Claims

This case concerns the popular television shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette(the “Shows”), which collectively have aired since 2002 on the “ABC” channel. Defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”) broadcasts these Shows, and the remaining defendants are companies and an individual otherwise involved in producing the Shows (collectively, “defendants”). The named plaintiffs, Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, are two African–American males who unsuccessfully applied to be the “Bachelor” in 2011.

The Bachelor, which debuted in 2002 on ABC, is a popular “reality television” show in which approximately 25 women compete for the affections of a single man—the “Bachelor.” Each season of The Bachelor features a different Bachelor and a different pool of female suitors. In 2003, The Bachelorette debuted as a spin-off of The Bachelor. The Shows are essentially identical, except that the gender roles are reversed— i.e., in The Bachelorette, a pool of male suitors competes for the affections of the “Bachelorette.” In total, there have been 16 seasons of The Bachelor and 8 seasons of The Bachelorette.⁴

As a condition of participating on either Show, the Bachelor or Bachelorette signs a casting contract with the defendants. The Bachelor/Bachelorette receives a stipend and enjoys various other benefits of participating on either Show, including fully paid housing, food, and travel expenses, as well the financial and professional benefits of celebrity status after his or her participation ends.

ABC's website states that “there has been an eclectic mix of bachelors over the years. We've seen a doctor, football star, prince, millionaire, [and a] single dad.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 37 (brackets in original).) Despite this “eclectic mix,” none of the Bachelors or Bachelorettes has been a person of color—that is, across 24 combined seasons, all of the Bachelors and Bachelorettes have been white. Furthermore, the vast majority of “suitors” for the Bachelor and Bachelorette have been white, and the few non-white contestants tend to be eliminated early on in each show. Thus, the weekly Shows typically feature a white Bachelor/Bachelorette and all (or nearly all) white suitors.

The plaintiffs allege “[t]he shows' complete lack of people of color is no accident.” ( Id. ¶ 40.) They allege that, as a matter of internal policy, the defendants have intentionally cast only white Bachelors and Bachelorettes. According to a news article, the shows' producers have feared “potential controversy stemming from an interracial romance,” ( id. ¶ 44), which they believe would alienate the Shows' predominantly white viewership. The plaintiffs allege that, for this reason, the defendants have intentionally refused to cast non-white Bachelors and Bachelorettes, to avoid the possibility that a particular season could end with an interracial couple. Thus, “[b]y hiring only white applicants, Defendants are making the calculation that minorities in lead roles and interracial dating is unappealing to the shows' audiences. The refusal to hire minority applicants is a conscious attempt to minimize the risk of alienating their majority—white viewership and the advertisers targeting that viewership.” ( Id. ¶ 68.)

The plaintiffs allege that various television shows on other networks have, by contrast, “featured an abundant number of racial minorities.” ( Id. ¶ 71.) Although ABC has also broadcasted shows involving minorities, those shows “involve platonic, as opposed to romantic, relationships among the cast members.” ( Id. ¶ 75.) According to the plaintiffs, “[t]his indicates that the presence of people of color in ABC programming is acceptable so long as there is not exhibition of actual romance between non-whites or whites and people of color.” ( Id. ¶ 75.)

The plaintiffs allege that The Bachelor and The Bachelorette “are examples of purposeful segregation in the media that perpetuates racial stereotypes and denies persons of color of opportunities in the entertainment industry.” ( Id. ¶ 76.) According to the plaintiffs, “[s]tudies have shown that television is extremely influential in shaping the way people view one another and themselves.” ( Id.) Accordingly, “[t]he exclusion of people of color from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette sends the message—to whites and racial minorities—that only all-white relationships are desirable and worthy of national attention.” ( Id. at ¶ 77.) From the plaintiffs' perspective, the defendants' communication of this “message” has a deleterious effect on society:

With such a massive viewership, Defendants have the opportunity to help normalize minority and interracial relationships by showcasing them to mainstream America on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Instead, by discriminatorily refusing to cast people of color in the lead roles (as well as in the role of suitor), Defendants play into the perceived racial fears of their audience and perpetuate outdated racial taboos.

( Id. ¶ 78.)

The plaintiffs allege that they and other minority applicants have been denied the equal opportunity to contract to be the Bachelor or the Bachelorette, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a statute that, among other things, prohibits discrimination in the formation of contracts.⁵ They seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all non-white applicants who met the shows' baseline eligibility requirements. The plaintiffs seek nominal damages, punitive damages, and two forms of injunctive relief: (1) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the alleged discriminatory practices; and (2) an injunction requiring the defendants to consider non-whites as finalists for the role of the Bachelor and the Bachelorette.

II. The Casting Process

To cast the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette, the defendants solicit mail-in applications through their website and conduct casting calls in various locations across the country. Applicants must fill out a questionnaire and provide recent photographs and/or video of themselves. Applicants selected as semi-finalists are flown to Los Angeles for additional interviews and must submit additional paperwork.

In 2011, plaintiff Johnson appeared for a casting call at a hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. In the hotel lobby, a white employee of the defendants stopped Johnson, took his materials, and promised to “pass them on” to the casting directors. Johnson observed that the white employee did not stop any of the white Bachelor applicants who were entering the hotel for the castingcall at the same time. Johnson never heard back from the Defendants about his application. In 2011, plaintiff Claybrooks appeared for a casting call at a different hotel. In the lobby, all of the other applicants appeared to be white. Although interview of these white applicants took about 45 minutes, Claybrooks's interview lasted only 20 minutes, making him feel that he had been rushed through the interview process without being given the same opportunity as the white applicants. Like Johnson, Claybrooks never heard back from the defendants concerning his application. The defendants ultimately selected a white Bachelor for its 2012 season.

III. The Defendants' Arguments

In support of their Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argue that the case should be dismissed with prejudice on either of two grounds: (1) the First Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the plaintiffs' claims; and/or (2) the “void-for-vagueness” doctrine bars the plaintiffs' claims. The defendants also argue that, if the claims are not barred on either of those grounds, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to establish a violation of § 1981.

In support of their Alternative Motion to Strike, the defendants argue that, if the court refuses to dismiss the case entirely, the court should at least find that (1) the proposed injunctions constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint and/or are impermissibly vague and superfluous; and/or (2) the plaintiffs' class allegations have not been...