Thursday, January 05, 2012

Indy | Judge orders age bias lawsuit to April trial; case offers rare look at how GCI engineers layoffs

In an eye-opening decision, a U.S. district court judge has brushed aside Gannett’s attempts to dismiss a former Indianapolis Star columnist’s age-discrimination lawsuit, ordering that her suit move to a jury trial this spring.

The case offers a rare inside look at how GCI has engineered thousands of company-wide layoffs in recent years -- including the single-largest, more than 2,000, in December 2008. What’s more, it could serve as a legal road map for other laid-off employees who also think they were victims of age discrimination.

Judge Richard Young didn’t rule on the central allegation made by the columnist, Susan Guyett, who was 59 when she was let go that December 2008. She was replaced by a co-worker who had less seniority and was 20 years younger. Indeed, Young noted that several of the 20 employees targeted that month were younger than Guyett.

But Young questioned what he called Editor Dennis Ryerson’s contradictory rationale for how he chose those to be laid off. And he suggested Ryerson had designed the reduction in force (RIF) to protect less-senior workers -- including three working for the Metromix entertainment site whose ages ranged from 25 to 31.

“Ryerson’s continuous narrowing of departments into subdepartments in order to spare less senior reporters from the RIF is evidence of pretext,’’ Young wrote in his 17-page order. “In other words, the Metromix reporters may not have been exempt from the RIF because their department was excluded, but rather were exempt due to Ryerson’s desire to retain young reporters for Metromix.”

‘Pretext for sparing young reporters’
Just two days after Guyett was laid off, Ryerson replaced her with Cathy Kightlinger, 39, who was transferred to the My Life features department from the community news department, and assigned to take over Guyett’s column.

“Ryerson’s explanation for protecting hard news reporters from the RIF,” the judge said, “contradicts his decision to remove Kightlinger from Community News to replace Plaintiff. Additionally, his decision to spare the Metromix reporters because Metromix is a subdepartment of the My Life department suggests a pretext for sparing young reporters from the RIF.”

Young unsealed his order on Tuesday after initially shielding it from public view when he signed it Dec. 22, according to Guyett’s attorney, Kathleen DeLaney of DeLaney & Delaney in Indianapolis.

Guyett filed her suit in April 2010 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 first worked for GCI at an unidentified New Year newspaper in 1978-79, then left the field until she returned in 1999 as a freelance writer at the Star, and then a full-time reporter the following year for the column, “Talk of Our Town.” She was covered by a Newspaper Guild contract that mandated layoffs based on seniority, except under certain limited circumstances.

In November 2007, Guyett got an overall annual performance rating of “three or higher,” Young said, “meaning that her job performance was meeting or exceeding the Star’s expectations.”

Letter: Guyett’s job ‘eliminated’
But a year later, she was chosen to be laid off, and was given a letter saying her job had been “eliminated,” Young said.

Kightlinger was quickly assigned to Guyett’s column. She had received the same overall rating as Guyett on her recent performance appraisal, Young said.

Yet, replacing Guyett with Kightlinger, Young said, "indicates that the news reporters were not indispensable, as Ryerson claimed, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Star’s stated reason for [Guyett’s] termination versus reporters in the hard news department with less seniority.”

Barring a settlement or other new developments, the case is scheduled to go to trial on April 24, attorney DeLaney said in a news release.

Earlier: In Gannett's TV business, why 40 isn't the new 20.

Do you think your layoff constituted age discrimination? Have you considered suing the company? Why -- or why not? 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.

41 comments:


  1. If by age discrimination, one equates its attendant pay scale, then yes.

    When my department was eliminated, its entire staff was invited to apply for a few new positions to give the appearance of fairness.

    Unfortunately I wasn't born yesterday.

    After years and years at this place, especially noting the marked difference between the aloofness of the current crop of execs and those before who had been more "hands on," it was quite clear to me how things worked -- in this case, that my application would be moot since if I were to be hired for the new position, it would (according to management) be at the pay scale I had finally attained after decades of service.

    Umm..., hardly the intent of layoffs, that, is it?

    No way was that newly imported Gannettized director going to have that particular fiscal faux pas on his record! He'd be seen as some not-team-player to the whole idea of payroll reduction, and ladder climbers don't do that. I considered suing, but... no lawyer would touch it.

    And I don't blame 'em. My only evidence is my life at that place. These guys were quite careful to say lots of stuff and never put it in writing, such as "loyalty bonuses" if we didn't quit on the spot once the then-undefined layoffs were first announced, etc.

    My point is that after about 2005, the place became more and more unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good luck I hope she wins and wins big and that it opens floodgates of lawsuits. I wouldn't be eligible but I hate company and love to see them get justice for their mistreatment of so many people over so many years.
    Chris Erwin

    ReplyDelete
  3. It will be interesting to see if this case has any effect on the age discrimination suit filed by two former Cincinnati Enquirer editors over layoffs in 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  4. whatever happened to the lawsuit a few years ago against Randy Hammer who was the publisher in Asheville?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gannett gets around this by eliminating positions. too bad at usa today, where there are at least 50 who could be out the door tomorrow and not be missed, except by the people they suck up to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw a lot of "age" descrimination because long time employees were better paid. But no lawyer in this town will take on Gannett knowing their pockets are deep, there legal team extensive and that the case could be tied up for ten years. I do know one employee though that got 2 years pay and a gag order to drop the suit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5:59, that $15M age discrimination lawsuit was settled:
    http://ebosswatch.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/newspaper-apparently-settles-15-million-workplace-bullying-lawsuit/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Looks like she's still looking for work, 2+ years after the settlement:
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/susan-ihne/6/a71/72a

    ReplyDelete
  9. 5:59 PM....A couple of weeks ago the Ashville website showed Hammer is still publisher at Ashville.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gannett gets around this by eliminating positions. I saw a lot of "age" discrimination because long time employees were better paid. But no lawyer in this town will take on Gannett knowing their pockets are deep, there legal team extensive and that the case could be tied up for ten years. They would've get an <a href="http://alliancereportingsolutions.com>court reporting agency</a> instead.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gannett is slick. New titles, changes to titles, elimination of positions with that title are the way it's done. They just change a title or break groups up with titles, with the future intention of using that to make changes/eliminate. I had a title, with specific duties but was told that position with those duties was eliminated and I could have a new position at 25% less. I went for it and the manager then sat with me and asked me what my new title should be. Guess what new duties I had? All the old ones and many more. Titles get around seniority, age, race and gender issues in work groups.

    One example is that many are no longer editors or a catchall title. There is now a night editor, a city editor, a metro editor. Everyone is unique. Then, it is easy to select the target that is selected to go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1:38 Two earlier posts on Gannett Blog illustrate ways in which Gannett gets around paying overtime, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the company in Montgomery, Ala.

    1. In a sworn statement, a former Montgomery Advertiser reporter spoke about signing timecards saying she had worked 40 hours a week, when she actually worked more. Hilary Funk underreported her hours because a newsroom culture discouraged putting in for overtime, she says, in some cases because employees feared losing their jobs.

    2. The former sports editor who brought the suit described a system familiar to many Gannett Bloggers. One way GCI limits overtime pay expenses is by shifting work to salaried managers -- who don't get OT -- from hourly workers, who ordinarily do receive it. Indeed, a frequent complaint among readers here: Gannett promotes hourly workers to such exempt-from-OT positions, with little change in responsibilities, so the company can get more work from them, without increasing payroll costs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. Yes. Sometimes it's called comp time, however everyone is told the phrase "no comp time!". But newsroom managers approve or put down the consistent 40 for reporters while turning their heads to the fact that they seen you day and night for an election, catastrophic event or something else that racks up hours. And magically when you are not at work for the comp time week, regular hours go in, not vacation time. That is best case scenario, only missing OT, but not regular pay.
    2. Yes and yes. Not just in news.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would like to know if anyone has any up to date info on the class action suit in Denver Federal court against Gannett. It's been a while since I've heard anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We're changing all of our titles to Vice President. Evidently that's a nice way to create a job for yourself and obviates any need to do real work aside from creating jobs for your buddies.

    Do we have a Vice President of Content Metrics? I'd love to stroll up to possible candidates for BNQT girls and ask them their measurements....

    ReplyDelete
  18. "unidentified New Year newspaper"

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ...... you know, it would be so easy to find out whom worked overtime and were not paid for it especially when the work done was via their computers at their desk! One way is to ACCESS THE HISTORY of the computer used by the worker logged in while working then verify those hours against the time sheets. Certainly one should come up short! Another way would be to check the person's time sheet against the hours they were in the building working because in order to gain access into the building one had to use their Security Access Card! What I'm trying to say is between the Security Access Card to gain entry into the office, and the time that person logged off of their computer to leave for that day - SHOULD give one an idea of how many O.T. hours that individual actually worked without being paid!

    .......just a thought!

    ReplyDelete
  20. The "narrowing of departments into subdepartments" so that particular reporters could be targeted in Indy strikes me as just what happened during the 2008 layoff at my property as well. The editor had carefully set the stage for it while reorganizing the newsroom in early 2007. The layoff was still done based on performance and seniority, but reporters who ranked higher than others in both categories if you look across the newsroom ended up being laid off because they didn't rank as well in their subdepartment, or because other subdepartments were exempted from the layoff. Did the same thing happen elsewhere, too?

    ReplyDelete
  21. 7:15 Is that Denver suit about the pension plan?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 9:35 The judge referred to it only as a Gannett newspaper in New York; he didn't identify it by name.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 10:10 am Why don't you contact the lawyer that's handling Guyett's case and share that information with her. http://delaneylaw.net/

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Indeed, a frequent complaint among readers here: Gannett promotes hourly workers to such exempt-from-OT positions, with little change in responsibilities, so the company can get more work from them, without increasing payroll costs."

    Not sure exactly why Jim deleted this before, but we'll try again with a shorter version.

    Salaried employee regulations are supposed to prevent this type of thing from happening. If it happens, it should be actionable. Companies are supposed to be prohibited from putting people on salary just to get more work from them. They are supposed to be supervising or participating in hiring.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Saw a really disgusting plastic surgeon's ad today featuring two photos of a nice looking, 40/50ish guy, before and after Botox, with the captions "got the job" and "didn't get the job." Before the Botox, he still looked fine. Am not sure what this woman looks like, but this is indeed sad and irrelevant, so I hope she and her lawyers fight like hell and win.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was an exempt reporter if you can believe that. Once, while I was with my family on an overnight camping trip, I was ordered to drive 175 miles to cover an hour-long event 22 miles the newspaper's home town because the city desk would have had to pay OT to anyone who went. So they paid for 350 miles of travel, a room, and meals for me, instead of paying someone an hour or two of OT. That this company is treading water should surprise no one.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Two 1st quarters ago, the amount of money my newspaper paid freelancers to do my assignments during my one-week furcation was 25% more than they would have paid me if I hadn't been forced to take the week off.

    And the work would be been quality, not the dreck churned out by the kiddie replacements.

    A Forrest Gump quote comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Your diligence in resurrecting the Johnson case is fair game, Jim, but that case was tossed after Johnson failed to back up his claims.

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/almdce/2:2009cv00924/41817/34/0.pdf?1301379103

    ReplyDelete
  30. 6:34 Thank you for that update.

    It's worth pointing out, however, that one of the two links I provided above concerns a sworn deposition of the newspaper's editor, Wanda Lloyd.

    In Lloyd's case, she was conceding that salaried editors sometimes do the work of hourly-paid reporters in order to reduce OT expenses.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Poughkeepsie (NY) has a history of making employees exempt with fancy title and zero supervising duties. Delores Pinto is now HR VP for Gannett east, based out of Wilmington. Of course, she has a G brass knuckle (president's ring)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Heh 7:31 Pinto has been retired for a year. Way to stay in the loop. But don't let details stop you from your post.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 8:23 Was Pinto's retirement announced publicly? Can you point us to a press release, e-mail, or some other advisory?

    Otherwise, how was 7:31 supposed to know she's gone?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jim, that's weak, and typical for you. You protect the people who don't know what they're talking about and who throw things at the wall. You are one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The courts will determine just/unjust, but Kathy's stuff is better than Susan's. But have to admit I rolled my eyes when the name of the column didn't change when the job was eliminated. That was an uh-oh moment.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "It will be interesting to see if this case has any effect on the age discrimination suit filed by two former Cincinnati Enquirer editors over layoffs in 2011."

    Yes indeed. Does anyone have an update on that, by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  37. 10:54 I don't know about that Cincinnati case, and a quick Google search didn't turn it up.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jim's investigative acumen: The Google search.

    The people who donate money must be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 9:01 since when dies Gannett put out press releases about HR staff? The poster took a shot about a person who was long gone. If you are going after someone you should do your homework especially if they haven't been seen in over a year. Unless of course you don't believe details matter.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 11:01 she did her share of damage Gannet muscle work while she was there to deserve critism.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 10:42, you must be joking - or an Indianapolis editor. "Cathy's stuff" is just as much dreck as "Susan's stuff." It just skews younger.

    ReplyDelete

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.