A TV host resigned because her employer didn’t respond when she complained about her cohost’s behavior. After her cohost was fired a few months later, she sued. During the pretrial fact-finding stage (discovery), the parties disagreed over what information they were required to exchange. Let’s take a look.
Combustible
Sydney Watson was the cohost of a TV show for Blaze Media, located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. She and her cohost, Elijah Schaffer, clashed. According to Watson, he was “aggressive” and “overly misogynistic” toward her and demonstrated “anti-Jewish” bias and made “antisemitic” comments.
Watson complained to management, which allegedly was unresponsive, and she ultimately resigned because of the working conditions. Schaffer was fired a few months later, and Watson then filed a lawsuit alleging sex and religious discrimination. This brings us to the pretrial fact-finding dispute.
Fight Over Answering Written Questions
In a lawsuit, each side can send written questions to the opposite party (i.e., “interrogatories,” from the root word “interrogate”). Here, Watson’s lawyers wanted to know, among other items, the following information:
- Interrogatory No. 4: State all reasons Blaze ended its business relationship with Schaffer.
- Interrogatory No. 8: Identify every person who made a complaint about Schaffer’s conduct.
- Interrogatory No. 9: Describe all actions Blaze took regarding all complaints made to Blaze about Schaffer’s conduct.
Blaze objected to these interrogatories. Ask yourself: What could the basis of the objections be? How do you think a court might rule on the objections and why?
OK, now back to regularly scheduled programming!
No. 4: Reasons for Ending Relationship with Schaffer
Blaze argued this question invaded Schaffer’s privacy concerns. Also, he was fired after Watson resigned, so the information was irrelevant, and it didn’t need to answer.
Not so fast, said the court. Central to Watson’s claims is whether Blaze knew about Schaffer’s alleged conduct. Maybe Blaze fired him for his conduct, or maybe it was for another reason. After all, he was fired just months after she left.
Privacy concerns? The court noted the parties can always agree to a protective order on the dissemination of the information and any exception to disclosure (such as private medical information). As an aside, it strikes me that Blaze protested too much on this item. Watson’s lawyers are going to think the company has something to hide.
No. 8: All Persons Who Made Complaints About Schaffer’s Conduct
Way too broad a request, argued Blaze. The court agreed. Here’s some great language from the court’s opinion that you, too, can use:
[Employees] in employment discrimination cases do not have an “unlimited ability to delve into their employers’ policy and personal records, even when [they] have alleged a pattern of discrimination.” . . . In discrimination cases, “the relevance of co-workers’ discrimination complaints is a fact based determination” limited to “(a) the same form of discrimination, (b) the same department or agency where [the employee] worked; and (c) a reasonable time before and after the discrimination complained of.”
Applying this legal principle to this case, the court limited the answers to complaints of sexual or religious discrimination for the two calendar years covering Watson’s employment and shortly after her resignation.
No. 9: Blaze’s Responses to Complaints
How Blaze treated other complaints is relevant to Watson’s claims. Did Blaze treat claims about Schaffer seriously? Were they ignored? Why? Watson v. Blaze Media, LLC, Case No. 3:23-CV-00279 ( N.D. Tex., May 3, 2024).
Bottom Line
Fact-finding is important. A party to a lawsuit needs to know the facts to argue their case or to use them as leverage for a settlement.
Michael P. Maslanka is a professor at the UNT-Dallas College of Law. You can reach him at michael.maslanka@unt-dallas.edu.