Six more former Cincinnati Enquirer newsroom employees have been added to a lawsuit claiming age discrimination when they were laid off in 2008, 2010 and 2011, according to an amended complaint filed in a Hamilton County court.
They have joined the suit originally filed this year in February by former Metro Editor Joe Fenton and former online staffer Catherine Reutter. Fenton was 57 and Reutter was 55 when they were canned in February 2011.
The six new plaintiffs and their ages when they were laid off are Charles Brewer, 58; Ernest Coleman, 66; Ron Huff, 59; Martel Kelli, 47; Eileen Kelley, 45, and Jeff Tindall, 50, according to the 25-page amended complaint, which was filed on Friday. A Gannett Blog reader provided a copy to me yesterday.
The suit says seven newsroom employees have been hired since the plaintiffs were laid off, but none of them were recalled, even though they were all qualified for the positions.
The details about Fenton, a 14-year Enquirer employee, are especially interesting.
In fall 2010, the complaint says, Fenton's annual performance review was delayed eight weeks during a change in top editors at the paper. In mid-November, his supervisor Julie Engebrecht "suddenly informed Fenton that his performance was unsatisfactory." In the same conversation, however, she acknowledged that he was a "great editor," the suit says.
Suit: Fenton called a 'dinosaur'
During a meeting with the head of human resources, Keith Bulling, Fenton said he was "flabbergasted" by his review, and that Engebrecht had given him no indication previously that his work was less than satisfactory.
However, the suit says Engebrecht had on occasion referred to Fenton as a "dinosaur" and a "curmudgeon."
Fenton was placed on a performance improvement plan that included meetings every Wednesday with Engebrecht. During each meeting, the suit says, Fenton asked Engebrecht, "are we good?" And Engebrecht "would assure him that things were good," the suit says.
But in February 2011, Fenton was told his job had been eliminated and he was laid off. Engebrecht later took over his duties, the suit says.
The Enquirer's weekday circulation is 144,165, and Sunday is 278,607, according to the March 31 ABC report.
Fenton and the other seven plaintiffs are represented by Brian Gillan and Randolph Freking of the Cincinnati law firm Freking & Betz.
The amended Enquirer lawsuit comes four months after a former Courier-Journal circulation executive claimed in a lawsuit that he, too, had been a victim of age discrimination when he lost his job at the paper in Louisville, Ky., a year ago.
Earlier: Indianapolis Star columnist reportedly settles age discrimination suit.
The six new plaintiffs and their ages when they were laid off are Charles Brewer, 58; Ernest Coleman, 66; Ron Huff, 59; Martel Kelli, 47; Eileen Kelley, 45, and Jeff Tindall, 50, according to the 25-page amended complaint, which was filed on Friday. A Gannett Blog reader provided a copy to me yesterday.
The suit says seven newsroom employees have been hired since the plaintiffs were laid off, but none of them were recalled, even though they were all qualified for the positions.
The details about Fenton, a 14-year Enquirer employee, are especially interesting.
In fall 2010, the complaint says, Fenton's annual performance review was delayed eight weeks during a change in top editors at the paper. In mid-November, his supervisor Julie Engebrecht "suddenly informed Fenton that his performance was unsatisfactory." In the same conversation, however, she acknowledged that he was a "great editor," the suit says.
Suit: Fenton called a 'dinosaur'
During a meeting with the head of human resources, Keith Bulling, Fenton said he was "flabbergasted" by his review, and that Engebrecht had given him no indication previously that his work was less than satisfactory.
However, the suit says Engebrecht had on occasion referred to Fenton as a "dinosaur" and a "curmudgeon."
Fenton was placed on a performance improvement plan that included meetings every Wednesday with Engebrecht. During each meeting, the suit says, Fenton asked Engebrecht, "are we good?" And Engebrecht "would assure him that things were good," the suit says.
But in February 2011, Fenton was told his job had been eliminated and he was laid off. Engebrecht later took over his duties, the suit says.
The Enquirer's weekday circulation is 144,165, and Sunday is 278,607, according to the March 31 ABC report.
Fenton and the other seven plaintiffs are represented by Brian Gillan and Randolph Freking of the Cincinnati law firm Freking & Betz.
The amended Enquirer lawsuit comes four months after a former Courier-Journal circulation executive claimed in a lawsuit that he, too, had been a victim of age discrimination when he lost his job at the paper in Louisville, Ky., a year ago.
Earlier: Indianapolis Star columnist reportedly settles age discrimination suit.
Isn't "curmudgeon" a code word meaning (cranky old) "columnist"?
ReplyDeleteAny idea when this suit actually gets tried? The plaintiffs aren't getting any younger . . .
I cannot believe Gannett is this stupid. Then again...
ReplyDeleteSome journalist dinosaurs need to be put in museums. But most have an innate ability, expertise and professionalism that should be highly valued and embraced. Unfortunately, that's not the Gannett way at the local or national level.
ReplyDeleteI hope Gannett loses this case, big time.
I hope they don't settle out of court, because that's what Gannett is going to want them to do in order to sweep this under the carpet.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a pending age bias case in Louisville.
ReplyDeleteIt has been brought by a former circulation director.
11:49 Thank you for that reminder. I've added a link to that earlier lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI'm Guild. That said -- how employable are those suing GCI now? If you owned a business -- would you hire someone who had just sued their previous employer?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: unlikely. You might hire them on contract, that's it.
Litigate if you want. But know upfront, it can cut both ways.
GCI sucks, especially Cinci -- small people, small minds, shitty-ass product. That is no reason to potentially commit economic suicide.
As for GCI -- this kind of pissy, full-of-shit management does not win over readers or advertisers.
Then again, most Gannettoids are so lame and dim-witted, they will never figure out how to profitably run a content-provider. They'll ride GCI, right down to Chapter 11.
The correct name for the HR VP is Keith Bulling.
ReplyDeletePrediction: More age discrimination lawsuits across the USCP coming.
ReplyDeleteJob security, Vincent!
Q: What's a carpet-bagging Gannettoid editor's next title?
ReplyDeleteA: "Stooge-editor of a shitty-ass newspaper. A nothing, a nobody."
Engebrecht was rewarded for her loyalty by being demoted to features editor. People wanted to sympathize with her as she tearfully took the news. But after she threw Fenton and the late Ron Liebau overboard, justice seemed to have been served. It just goes to show that blind loyalty to cold-hearted corporate puppets like Washburn and Buchanan doesn't guarantee job security. Engebrecht was running the news operation. Now she has a couple of arts writers, the weekend calendar and a stable of freelancers. Some payoff for loyalty.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Bulling personally, he should have been sacked long ago for looking the other way when Buchanan went over the line and for his lack of experience in areas that given his title, he should have well known and understood.
ReplyDeleteFiling an age discrimination suit against your employer for dumping you because you're too old and expensive is career suicide?
ReplyDeleteReally?
Check LinkedIn - most of the folks in the Cincinnati suit have found new employment. I'm sure all of them are a lot happier in their new careers, sans GANNETT.
That lawsuit is about CASH. Gannett threw them out to save some, and they'll pay some more to settle it.
It's just business.
Why don't you post their LI.com URLs?
ReplyDeleteDo you know what a URL is?
Discrimination at the Enquirer isn't limited to the people they sacked. It's still happening inside, and it will come back to bite GCI. Gannett asked for this time bomb by leaving Maggie and Big Nurse in charge.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is surprising when you consider the arrogance of those in charge at Cincinnati. I thank God I was able to leave on my own. They treat people horribly and don't think any laws or rules apply to them. I have never before or since had the misfortune of working for such truly awful people.
ReplyDelete7:20 is correct. I've corrected Bulling's spelling.
ReplyDeleteQ: What's a carpet-bagging Gannettoid editor's next title?
ReplyDeleteA: "Stooge-editor of a shitty-ass newspaper. A nothing, a nobody."
10/23/2012 7:24 AM
Bang! Nail hit on head.
But how about that senior female managing editor/ops canned from Gannett Government Media in February? She was over 50.
Now? A lowly copy editor.
Just desserts or just discrimination?
Gannett is going to lose this one. They are going to have to go back to voulntary buyouts to shed salaries. Why they didnt do this in the first place is astounding. The arrogance and stupidity of management continues to amaze.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Julie Engebrecht, she did not lay off the late Ron Liebau.
ReplyDeleteHe was an online department employee at the time. But the manager of that department - who made the decision as part of a budget cut - balked at breaking the news to Ron. So, Julie was asked to do it.
I'm unclear why that was allowed to happen. But I do know that she's been getting the bum rap for it ever since.
Ron Liebau's online place has been taken by a woman in her twenties. She was moved from a copy desk that laid off two over-fifty employees.
ReplyDeleteMargaret and Carolyn have saved $$$ for projects like their massive office redecoration, but their sloppiness as managers even applies to how they screw people. They're costing Gannett plenty of unnecessary $$$, and will cost Gannett even more as long as their bosses have the bad judgment to stick with them.
Wrong
ReplyDeleteHey, where are those URLs? Oh. There's a problem?
-- at least two listed still @ Cinci/GCI
-- not in LI.com
-- "consultant"
-- "professional"
-- PR for social service agency
There are some real fool Gannettoids.
Then again, in some cases, there is foundation for what they do.
Like not actually checking the facts and understanding technology.
---
Filing an age discrimination suit against your employer for dumping you because you're too old and expensive is career suicide?
Really?
Check LinkedIn - most of the folks in the Cincinnati suit have found new employment. I'm sure all of them are a lot happier in their new careers, sans GANNETT.
Proven
ReplyDeleteThat filing lawsuits can easily be discovered on the Web, by potential employers and clients. College graduates have found out that employers always run Web-searches on applicants, prior to job-interviews. Also the big-name graduate schools.
Better to know this now, than after the fact. It is called "street smarts." S.S. used to be newsrooms, before the Gannettoids took over.
I've heard two Enquirer managers describe a pair of older employees as "the dinosaur twins."
ReplyDeleteDid you think they deserved that term?
ReplyDeleteSome do. Some don't. You did not make that clear.
And a Gannettoid is a Gannettoid.
In my case, damned straight I spoke with a lawyer. But in my instance Gannett made out big time. Although the accountants were glad to get rid of some loyal idiot who was by then earning a wage commensurate with 25 years on the job, never slacking, finally and in the face of hostile odds achieving the five weeks’ vacation tier, pink-misting my career was just an added bonus. Why? Because everyone else in my department, from newbies on up to me, lost their job as well, so no matter the benefit of axing a long-term employee, the fact that the others were culled as well made the deed moot. Not moot to me, certainly, but the lawyer declined to take it any further. He was a good guy, though. Not then successful at finding new employ at my age (and I was eager to accept no-experience starting wage), I was now on unemployment; he declined his consultation fee.
ReplyDeleteReality
ReplyDelete3:23, that's right, most lawyers will NOT take an old-age case. Because they are very hard to win. My aunt tried it, and it did not work. She then retired @ age 62.
However, if they can get some PR out of the deal, or the client/sucker is willing to put up THEIR cash first -- yeah, they'll do it. "A fool and his money are soon parted."
Recall in "The Godfather," the words of Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo to Michael Corlone:
"Mike, no one wants a war. Blood is a big expense."
And so is litigation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a moron.
Gannettoids are jerks, fools, and losers. Resistance to their stupidity is futile.
It depends on your case. Cincinnati is playing a dangerous game with supervisors looking the other way on workers pressured into free overtime. That can be costly in the end.
ReplyDeleteSimple
ReplyDeleteHour/labor cases are so simple, govt handles them. There is no need to pay a lawyer to handle them.
It is well-established, hour/labor cases are priority-status in bankruptcy cases. They go right to the head of the line.
As for Gannettoid-ized rubes who try to pressure workers into free OT -- you get what you pay for. Crap pay -- crap work.
And the customers know it. Gannett is well-known for crappy quality, everyone with a brain knows it. Call it a "war on quality and facts."
---
It depends on your case. Cincinnati is playing a dangerous game with supervisors looking the other way on workers pressured into free overtime. That can be costly in the end
Cases like this are indicators of rotten management that's costly in so many ways other than what gets lost in lawsuits. And of the quality of a company that would leave management like that in place.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the Cinci Enq already lose an age-discrimination case filed by George Blake?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you 'google' the answer about G. Blake?
ReplyDeleteHey Wrong / Proven / Reality / Simple:
ReplyDeleteIf you're really Guild as you claim, why are you so worked up about someone filing an age discrimination suit? And you're belittling those who were dumped by Gannett and went out and found employment in a non-dying industry?
I wonder who you're REALLY working for! Are you being paid to scare other Gannett sheep into silence and apathy over their mistreatment?
Why don't you toddle off to the corner drug store and buy some Preparation H. It will help those hemorrhoids and maybe you won't be so cranky.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteG. Blake
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newspaperalum.com/2012/08/former-executive-editor-george-blake-working-to-create-zones-of-privacy-on-the-web.html
Yet one more example of some of the stupidest people in the USA posting here.
No wonder they were "retired."
Hey Prep H -- you got all the stuff. Not fair!
ReplyDeleteEngebrecht threw a lot of us under the bus during that June 2011 round of layoffs, including me. And she volunteered to be features editor when it became clear that she'd earned a whole lotta bad karma being Carolyn Washburn's hatchet woman.
ReplyDeleteIf she volunteered, why was she so upset at being dumped in features? And yes, she threw many people under the bus and never had the courage to look them in the eye.
ReplyDeleteEngebrecht should have moved on. She will never recover standing in that newsroom. A couple of states away would allow her to rebound with people unaware of her dispicable reign in Cincy.
ReplyDeleteIt is, by and large, unlawful to treat employees unfavorably because of their age. But the thing here is all six laid-off workers were above 40 years old. That means they can expect protection from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). And that is a ray of hope in itself, although this act has its limitations.
ReplyDelete