CASE 2.1 Steines V. Crown Media United States, LLC 2018 WL 6330600,2018 Fair Empl. Proc. Cas. (BNA) 447, 129, 2018 IER Coses 447, 129 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Col.2018) Plaintiffs Mark Steines and Steines Entertainment, Inc. brought action against the defendants, Crown Media United States, HC and others. Steines asserted claims for retaliation, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, filure to prevent retaliation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a result of Steines termination from his tole as cohost of the Hallmark Channel's day. time lifestyle show Home d Family. Steines was fired after he allegedly reported the secual harassment of female staff by an executive producer on the television show. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ultimately denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The allegations arose out of Crown Media's response to Steines's complaints about Woody Fraser, the creator and longtime executive producer of Home or Family. Fraser allegedly bullied, verbally abused, and harassed cast and crew members, parricularly female producers. While on set. Fraser allegedly made secually inappropriate comments about female guests to Steines in his earpiece. In addition. Stcines allegedly witnessed Fraser forcibly hug and massage a number of female employees. Cast and crew members of Home & Fiamily regulatly approached Steines with complaints about Fraser's behav. iot. Through his manager and telent agent, Steines made repeated complaints to Crown Media's executives, but they did not take action. In December 2016, Steines allegedly received an email sent by Fraser to a portion of the television crew, In the email, Fraser admitted anger management problems. Through his manager, Steines forwarded the email to Crown Media's executives. Steines's talent agent also relayed Steines's complaint that Fraser had sexually harassed a female producer. In April 2017, a photo circulated around the Home of Family set that purportedly showed Fraser grabbing the face of a young female producer and forcing a kiss on her lips. Steines texted this photo to his manager and his talent agent for them to forward to Crown Medias executives. Steines believed that Crown Media would take action if they saw photographic evidence of Fraser's sexual harassment. In the spring of 2017, two female employees at Home of Family formally reported their claims of sexual harassment. Steines was contacted as a potential witness and be provided information to the fernale employes' attorney. In June 2017. Steines and his entertainment law attorneys participated in a conference call with Crown Media, which apparently wanted to know what Stcines had aid to the employee attorney. Shordy after the conference call. Steines leatned that he was not invited to introduce the network's president and vice president at the Hallmark Channel's presentation for the Television Critics Association (an introduction he had made at the previous five events). In July 2017. Crown Media terminated Steines's regular voice-over work for the Hallmark Channel, without any explanation or notice. Around the same time, Crown Media's representatives told Steines that they "needed" him to take a substantial pay cut, something the network had never previously requested in Steines's six previous years as cohost. Steines's salary was reduced to an amount even lower than what he was paid two years prior, while his cohost's salary remained unchanged. Crown Media then let Steines's contract expire for the first time since 2012 and subsequently signed Steines to a single-season contract. On May 30, 2018, defendants terminated Steines after a live show taping, despite three months remaining on his contract. On September 20, 2018, Steines filed action against his employers in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Analysis and Holding Retaliation The District Court found that Steines adequately alleged that he engaged in protected activity to support a claim of retaliation, citing the numerous factual allegations regarding the supposed sexual harassment and gender discrimination on Home Family's set. Crown Media argued that Steines failed to allege retaliation because he made most of his complaints to Crown Media through his representatives, such as his manager or talent agent. But Crown Media cited no law for their assertion that anti-retaliation laws require that "one must personally engage in the protected activity," rather than make a complaint through a chain of communication. The Court found that even if communicated through a talent agent or manager, Steines initiated the process of making the complaint and Crown Media could attribute the complaints to him. action is adverse." Steines adequately alleged adverse employment action, based on the several instances cited in his complaint: being terminated from work assignments he had held for years, being forced to take a pay cut, and eventually, being terminated. Lastly, Crown Media asserted that Steines's complaint failed to allege a causal link between the alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse action. Causation is ordinarily a question of fact. "A long period between an employer's adverse employment action and the employee's earlier protected activity may lead to the inference that the rwo events are not causally connected." However, "if between these events the employer engages in a pattern of conduct consistent with a retaliatory intent, there may be a causal connection." The Court found that Steines adequately alleged a causal connection. Steines alleged a pattern of retaliatory conduct between the time Steines assisted with the other employees' FEHA action and the time he was terminated. Wrong ful Termination and Failure to Prevent Retaliation Crown Media sought to dismiss Steines's daims for wrongful termination and failure to prevent retaliation on the same grounds that they moved to dismiss his claims for retaliation. A discharged employec may bring a tort action for wrongful termination where the discharge violated fundamental principles of public policy. Violations of provisions of FEHA give rise to a tort action for wrongful termination. Similarly, a claim for failure to prevent retaliation depends on an underlying claim for retaliation. As discussed in the previous section, Steines alleged a valid claim for retaliation, so his claims for wrongful termination and failure to prevent retaliation still stand. For these reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. Case Questions Court found that even if communicated through a talent agent or manager, Steines initiated the process of making the complaint and Crown Media could attribute the complaints to him. Crown Media also argued that Steines failed to allege that the defendants subjected Steines to adverse employment action. An adverse employment action requires a "substantial adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs employment." A "mere offensive utterance" or "pattern of social slights" is not enough, but "a series of alleged discriminatory acts must be considered collectively rather than individually in determining whether the overall employment denied, Case Questions 1. Explain the California court's ruling. Did it find in the employee's favor? If yes, how so? 2. Why did the Court find that Steines's claims for wrongful termination and failure to prevent retaliation could stand? 3. Under what circumstances may a discharged employee bring a tort action for wrongful termination
