Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
FLORA POSTERARO,
PHRC Case No. 201703188
Complainant,
EEOC Case No.
v.
COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION
§ 951 et seq.
PARTIES
Flora Posteraro
3704 Leyland Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Robert Bee
3235 Hoffman Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
1
FACTS
“employee” as defined under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S.
more employees within the Commonwealth and is an “employer” as defined under the
supervisor during the relevant time period, and the General Manager of ABC27, the
Company’s television station where Posteraro was employed as a news anchor (the
“Station”).
A few months later, she was promoted to the weekday anchor role at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.
Following Clarksburg, Posteraro also served as the weekday anchor at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.
in Johnstown and then Wilkes-Barre. In 1990, she began working as a reporter at WPVI
in Philadelphia, then the fourth largest market in the country. In 1995, Posteraro was
9. From August 11, 1997 until March 12, 2018, when her employment was
terminated, or in the alternative, when she was constructively discharged, Posteraro was
2
10. Her normal shift was Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and her
duties included, but were not limited to, anchoring the noon and 5 p.m. newscasts,
reporting on special segments (including Focus on Family and Healthy High 5), writing
stories, editing, proofing other reporters’ scripts, attending promotional events for the
employees.
11. Over her more than 20-year tenure with the Station, Posteraro won many
awards, including Emmys for anchoring and reporting, Associated Press awards for
reporting, and numerous awards in recognition for her work with the community and
non-profits.
12. In January 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of the Station. At
that time, the Company engaged Bee as the new General Manager.
demanding that the female on-air talent discard their fashionable sleeveless dresses as “no
one wants to look at flabby arms,” and by using the Station’s funds to purchase new ties
for the male reporters and anchors, while the female anchors and reporters were required
14. In June 2017, Bee decided that female anchors who worked evening shifts
would fill in for the morning anchors. While it was not unusual for anchors to substitute
for each other as needed, it was unusual that this policy applied only to the female
anchors, and not the male anchors. As a result, female anchors filling in for the morning
anchors would be required to work a split shift from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. and, at a minimum
3
from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. It was not until Posteraro objected that this change unfairly
burdened and discriminated against the female anchors that Bee added a male anchor to
the substitute rotation. After Bee reluctantly added a male anchor to the rotation of filling
in, Bee praised and thanked that male anchor publicly for his sacrifice while ignoring the
burden he had placed on the female anchors who already had been filling in.
15. On July 15, 2017, the Station’s News Director departed. At that time,
upon information and belief, Station management – including Bee – had only discussed
the options of keeping Amanda St. Hilaire in the weekend anchor role and moving the 11
p.m. weekday male anchor and reporter Mike Parker to a weekend anchor position. At
that time, upon information and belief, there was no discussion or consideration given to
desirable than weekday anchoring, as it involves fewer on air appearances coupled with
17. By August 2017, Bee had publicly referred to another female anchor as a
“mean bitch,” told the at-the-time news director that a female reporter looked like a “fat
pig” on air, made uncomfortable racial and sexual comments about the morning anchors,
had described women who did not follow his restrictive dress code as “street walkers,”
and said those who defied his dress code “would pay” for challenging him. Upon
information and belief, Bee had shown a similar pattern of behavior at the Nexstar-owned
4
18. Posteraro repeatedly and respectfully stood up to Bee and opposed his
near daily disrespectful and disparaging treatment of women. When another female
anchor, Amanda St. Hilaire, began speaking up to Bee and refusing to allow his behavior
to continue unchallenged, Bee asked St. Hilaire if Posteraro “put her up to it.”
20. The new News Director commenced work around August 8, 2017.
22. Upon information and belief, Bee knew that Posteraro participated in the
stated that he was not aware of any anchor changes and there were no plans for anchor
25. Upon information and belief, the Station conducted its own focus groups,
rather than following the industry standard of hiring an independent research firm.
Further, it is believed and therefore averred that the focus group clips were selectively
picked to ensure a predetermined outcome. Further, the focus groups did not utilize clips
of all of the anchors. The clips did not include the weekend anchors, or the morning
anchors. Rather, the focus groups saw a clip of a newscast with the 6 p.m. anchor team,
5
26. In November 2017, Posteraro approached the News Director about the
status of her contract renegotiation, as her contract was set to expire on December 24,
2017.
27. The News Director confirmed that her contract would be renewed. He
advised that he would reach out to Bee and get back to Posteraro. When Posteraro
followed up several times over the following weeks, the News Director informed her that
he was waiting to hear from Bee. The News Director eventually advised Posteraro that
the contract was tied up with the Station’s budget, which was not finalized, and that the
Station would be in touch after the holidays to begin negotiations. He further indicated
that he preferred “not to do business this way” but that his “hands were tied.”
the expiration and they had never been held up with the excuse that they were tied to a
budget.
29. Despite the absence of the contract, Posteraro continued to anchor the
30. On January 31, 2018, the News Director informed Posteraro that although
the Station was offering her a two-year contract at the same rate of pay, starting in March
(i.e. after the February ratings period which determines the amount the Station charges
advertisers for commercials) she would no longer be anchoring the noon or 5 p.m.
weekday newscasts, but rather would be a Weekend Anchor, with reporting duties three
31. When pressed, the News Director admitted to Posteraro that the change in
6
32. Upon information and belief, the Station and Bee had no plan to move
Posteraro to the Weekend Anchor position until after Posteraro challenged Bee’s
33. In a February 2, 2018 meeting between Posteraro and Bee, Bee agreed that
Posteraro’s performance was exceptional. Posteraro questioned whether she was being
discriminated against. In that meeting, and on several prior occasions in private and in
claiming that the demotion was retaliation for her objection to Bee’s treatment of female
employees.
Company concluded that there was no retaliation. Among other matters, the Company
failed to speak with individuals who had evidence supporting Posteraro’s claims.
36. On February 26, 2018 – after she expressed concerns about retaliation for
reporting discriminatory conduct – Posteraro was informed that her demotion would not
be to daytime reporting, as she was initially informed, but rather night side reporting,
assigned.
37. Posteraro informed the Station that she was not quitting, and that she was
willing to continue working in her current role as noon and 5 p.m. anchor, and that she
believed the offered demotion (including the night side assignment) was retaliation.
7
38. On Monday March 12, 2018 the Station advised she no longer worked for
39. Posteraro did not resign; rather she was terminated, or in the alternative,
constructively discharged.
42. The first explanation (from the News Director and Bee) provided in or
around January 31, 2018 and February 2, 2018 was that the move had nothing to do with
her performance (which was acknowledged to be exceptional), and that the Station
43. The next explanation came on February 21, 2018, from a corporate
manager. She claimed that the Station was moving Posteraro to a weekend anchor
position because there were too many anchors during the week and ratings were eroding.
The same manager told Posteraro that the decision to move her was made before the
October focus groups. She further stated that the focus groups merely “reaffirmed” their
decision
44. The third explanation on February 23, 2018 came from corporate human
resources representative, who claimed that the decision was made based on a ten-minute
meeting in April 2017 between a corporate representative, Posteraro and her co-anchor
shortly before a broadcast. The HR representative claimed that the representative had, on
this one, off-air meeting, observed no chemistry and no rapport between Posteraro and
8
her co-anchor, and that the focus group re-affirmed the observations. The focus group
comments provided to Posteraro did not, in fact address such alleged observations.
Moreover, out of the 60 focus group participants, the Station identified only six
45. The fourth reason given to Posteraro on February 26, 2018 by a corporate
manager was that the Company managers “knew they had to move one weekday anchor
to the weekends,” but the focus groups changed that decision and led them to believe they
“had to move two weekday anchors to the weekend.” This explanation contradicts the
Company’s prior statements that the focus groups “reaffirmed” the decision it had already
made.
46. The inconsistent and changing explanations belie that the real reason for
the demotion was in retaliation for Posteraro’s complaints about Bee’s treatment of
women.
47. Posteraro has satisfied any and all conditions precedent to her right to
Count 1
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. the Company)
48. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth herein at length.
permitting a hostile work environment which discriminated against Posteraro and other
9
female employees with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment
51. The discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms
and conditions of her employment, as described more fully above. Male co-workers were
52. As set forth more fully above, this conduct constitutes unlawful
discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,
discrimination.
WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all
appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or
interest.
Count 2
Retaliation Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. the Company)
54. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth herein at length.
10
57. After Posteraro complained of the discriminatory working conditions, the
Company retaliated against her by demoting her and terminating her employment where
retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
retaliation.
WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all
appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or
interest.
Count 3
Discrimination and Retaliation Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. Bee)
62. At all relevant times, Bee contributed directly to the hostile work
63. Bee aided and abetted in the hostile work environment, discrimination and
64. Upon information and belief, Bee had decision-making power regarding
11
66. Posteraro has suffered damages due to Bee’s unlawful conduct.
appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or
interest.
Count 4
Discrimination Under Title VII
(Complainant v. Company)
68. Posteraro is a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000et seq. (“Title VII”), as she is a
female.
permitting a hostile work environment which discriminated against Posteraro and other
female employees with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment
70. The discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms
and conditions of her employment, as described more fully above. Male co-workers were
71. As set forth more fully above, this conduct constitutes unlawful
12
WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all
appropriate remedies under Title VII, including back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement,
Count 5
Retaliation Under Title VII
(Complainant v. Company)
74. Posteraro is a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”), as she is a
female.
Company retaliated against her by demoting her and terminating her employment where
retaliation.
13
WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all
appropriate remedies under Title VII, including back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement,
DUAL FILING
This charge has been dual filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission asserting all claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
Date: By:________________________
Charles V. Curley
1100 E. Hector Street
Suite 425
Conshohocken PA 19428
610 834 8819
610 834 8813 (fax)
Attorneys for Complainant
14
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements contained in this Amended Complaint are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. § 4904, relating to
_____________________________
Flora Posteraro
Date:______________
15