Susan J. Guyett, 61, filed her lawsuit Monday in federal court in Indianapolis, after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gave its support for her to sue. She brought her complaint to the commission in May 2009 after her dismissal in December 2008.
Guyett wrote the The Indianapolis Star's "Talk of Our Town" column, the Indianapolis Business Journal says today. She says in the suit that her position was eliminated as part of a cost-cutting measure. The content and concept of the feature remained the same, however, after the column was assigned to another reporter, the lawsuit says.
The newspaper declined to comment on her complaint, the Star said today in its own story.
Earlier: Ex-editor in Montgomery, Ala., claims unpaid overtime in lawsuit. Plus: Gannett launches what is likely the biggest mass layoff in newspaper industry history
Got a Gannett related lawsuit to spotlight? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
11 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One note: While the *printed* content and concept stayed the same, the digital side evolved to include a lot more things: photos, tweets and such.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Ms. Guyett's situation personally, but that might have been a non-age factor in the decision.
What I hear you saying is maybe this "old lady" could not tweet, post photos and such, so maybe she deserved to go? And you have the nerve to come on a blog owned by a 50+ person who tweets, posts photos and such, and insert your opinion. Amazing.
ReplyDeleteSending my best to Susan. Age discrimination on the job is no fun. I know. Been there---done that.
Plus: Yours truly is on Facebook; produces and posts videos on YouTube; chats with friends using Skype's app on my iPhone -- AND begs for change using a PayPal widget!
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of begging for change . . .
@ 1:28 PM: I disagree that "photos, tweets and such" would be a non-age factor. There's a perception that younger reporters are more tech-savvy and inclined to use social networking, but that's not the case at my paper.
ReplyDeleteThere's a similar columnist at my paper...60-ish, same kind of society content, but she blogs, tweets and feeds the photo galleries. She also knows about events (not just society dos) months before the rest of us because of her connections.
Sorry, but this is bogus. We're hired as reporters, not reporters-covering-one-specific-area. If I'm the cops reporter and I get laid off, the cops beat isn't going to go uncovered. Some other poor sap is going to have to do it. Ditto for any other beat at the paper. We're chess pieces.
ReplyDeleteBut if the cops beat gets eliminated for whatever reason, a person 61 gets laid off as a result of that decision, and then the beat is reinstated with a 39 year old, that's discrimination pure and simple. I still maintain the position eliminations at Gannett were designed to get rid of a protected class of workers, namely the 40+ age employees. Gannett doesn't like old people.
ReplyDeleteThis is an issue that goes beyond newsrooms, so read the following more broadly to include other departments.
ReplyDeleteImagine a topsy-turvy world in Gannett. Everyone UNDER 50 years old earns the biggest wages and has the highest heath care costs.
Meanwhile, everyone OVER 50 years old has the lowest wages, and lowest medical costs.
In that case, Gannett would have fired thousands of younger workers. That is because the aim of the layoffs over the past two years was to reduce payroll.
But, of course, that's not what happened. I'm not a labor law expert, but it may well be that even though Gannett was seeking to cut costs, by laying off a group that was disproportionately older, it nonetheless engaged in de facto age discrimination.
Note that this matter has already received the blessing of the EEOC to proceed forward. That suggests there may be something to this woman's case.
For the record: Digital Photography/Twitter are not age-specific ... and I never said they were, in fact quite the opposite.
ReplyDeleteIt could be that she didn't appear willing or able to do it (along with likely having a larger-than-should-be salary for the position). That could be just as true for a 20-year-old as a 70-year-old.
And that has little to do with age.
Again: I don't know the specifics, only pointing out a non-ageism rationale for choosing her.
To be honest, my best guess would be that higher-ups were given a salary number to hit. You could either cut 5 high-pay employees or 7 lower-salaried employees.
I for one am totally OK with going the route that causes fewer casualties.
Jim, Whatever happened with the discrimination suit in Asheville?
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, that suit was settled. But I don't think terms were made public.
ReplyDelete3:02: My point is that the beat was not eliminated. Beats are never eliminated; the stuff is still there to be covered by someone. What's eliminated is a position. Positions can be moved around; beats can be switched. Unless you have a contract that says you're ONLY the Politics Reporter, or the Sports Page Designer, or the Andersonville Town Hall Reporter, you can get moved around or axed fairly easily. That's the way the business works.
ReplyDeleteThink about it another way. An auto manufacturer eliminates the jobs of 100 workers, including those of people who install seatbelts. Cars rolling off the line are still going to have seatbelts, and people will be moved from other areas or processes changed to make that happen. The seatbelt-installer jobs weren't eliminated - the manufacturing line worker jobs were. The work still has to be done.