Archive for year: 2021

There has been a shake-up at the top of one of the big three in broadcast television. CBS has removed Peter Dunn, the TV station executive, and David Friend, Senior Vice President of News while the company investigates dozens of gender and racial discrimination claims. The change has already increased diversity among newscasters, and promises to result in more drastic actions.

LA Times Investigation Reveals Gender and Racial Discrimination at CBS News

In January 2021 the Los Angeles Times released its article, “Inside CBS’ fraught investigation into allegations of racism and misogyny.” In it, the newspaper revealed that more than a dozen current and former CBS staff members had raised complaints of gender and racial discrimination. They said executives at the company had created a hostile work environment.

The piece of investigative journalism also revealed that the company’s 2018 sexual misconduct investigation had not resulted in the kinds of change the news station’s employees had been hoping for. When the LA Times interviewed Marty Wilke, the former general manager of CBS’ Chicago TV station, he asked:

“What was that whole investigation about? Was it just for show?” Wilke asked. “The culture starts and stops with Peter Dunn.”

Peter Dunn Restricted Black Journalists’ Careers Across the Country

Dunn has run the chain of 28 CBS-owned TV stations since 2009. According to the Times, Dunn keeps a tight grip on those stations, personally managing which anchors and reporters appear on CBS.

In New York, Black journalists reported that managers often passed over news coverage related to communities of color. The New York flagship station, WCBS, didn’t have any full-time Black male reporters under Dunn.

In Philadelphia’s City Center, CBS’ local station KYW was often called “White-Witness News” by Black residents who made up 44% of the population. After a popular Black journalist was promoted to lead evening anchor, Dunn disparaged him, calling him “just a jive guy” a racial slur referring to a form of dance popular among African Americans. Dunn also rejected a Black woman who was the local manager’s number one pick for morning show anchor, along with a second anchor candidate, calling him “too gay for Philadelphia.”

David Friend Tried to “Shut Up” Black Women Journalists

Less than a year after Dunn took over the TV Stations group, he promoted David Friend to oversee news operations across the country. In 2016, after Brook Thomas, a new Black co-anchor, appeared on the Philadelphia morning show, Friend called Margaret Cronan, who ran the local news crew. The LA Times reported:

“It was just immediate screaming on the phone, not constructive criticism — just venom and profanity,” Cronan said. “He screamed: ‘Tell her to shut the [expletive] up,’” in reference to Thomas. “I was flabbergasted…”

Friend followed up with an email…  “Can you please tell her to stop shouting, stop talking in a fake Southern accent and stop sucking the air out of the show?”

He demanded that Thomas be terminated as soon as possible and that Cronan stop promoting the morning show.

Friend also targeted Cronan herself, publicly calling her “a [expletive] idiot” and telling her she was “running out of time.” Several women reported being bullied by both Dunn and Friend during their time at CBS. Marty Wilke retired at age 53 in 2018, citing clashes with Dunn.

After its 2018 investigation, CBS’ board promised to do better, saying improving “the working environment for all employees” would be a “high priority.” But the CBS investigator never contacted Wilke at all. Brien Kennedy was asked to help with an internal review of workplace misconduct by Dunn. Five months later he was fired.

CBS Removes Peter Dunn and David Friend from New York Headquarters

Then, in January 2021, the LA Times published its report. The light of a news investigation apparently did what dozens of internal complaints could not. Within three months, CBS removed both Peter Dunn and David Friend from their positions in the company pending a new investigation.

“Removing these two individuals is a good start,” prominent Black journalist Roland Martin [told the LA Times]. “But there is so much more work that needs to be done throughout CBS. There are some systemic and cultural issues that exist, and I want to hear a deeper and broader plan to address them.”

This time, the investigation will specifically review Dunn and Friend. By mid-April, dozens of CBS executives, past and present, had met with the attorney-investigators. Dunn’s replacement, George Cheeks announced:

“We have determined that CBS Stations President Peter Dunn and SVP of News David Friend are not returning to their positions and will be leaving the Company.”

Discrimination Investigation Promises to Lead to Increased Diversity

This time, there is reason to believe that the gender and racial discrimination investigation will get results, particularly when it comes to increasing diversity at CBS. George Cheeks, who was appointed the company’s new chief executive in March 2020, is himself bi-racial. That same month, WCBS (New York) got its first full-time Black male reporter.

“I prayed that CBS executives would make this decision, and I am relieved that they did,” Cronan [told the LA Times]. “There is still much work that needs to be done, but with these two individuals out, there is promise ahead. There’s hope — and that’s something that those who have worked in that division of CBS haven’t felt in a long time.”

When racial discrimination and sexual misconduct starts at the top of a nationwide company like CBS, sometimes it takes more than an internal complaint to change the toxic work environment. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced racial discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys know what it can take to get a harasser out of an executive position. We can help you and your coworkers file individual complaints with the EEOC or New York Human Rights Commission, and come together to tell your story in court. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.

In the summer of 2020, protests erupted across the country in the wake of the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The protests drew attention to racial discrimination and the problem of meaningful diversity in every industry, law included. But what has happened to the pledges of Big Law firms to do better in recruiting and promoting black lawyers? Will diversity in law firms continue to improve now that the protests have ended?

Big Law Firms Respond to Black Lives Matter Protests

When Black Lives Matter protesters took to the streets of Minneapolis, New York, and most other large cities across the country, they demanded more from the country’s biggest and most powerful industries. That included law. By early June, more than 70 Big Law firms had issued statements on racial injustice and discrimination. Perhaps the first statement issued was from Skadden Law, which said:

“As a Firm, we cannot fully live up to our core values without ensuring that Skadden continues to be a safe and welcoming place for everyone, while using our platform to combat racism.”

The firm committed to pro bono work and financial contributions to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Kim Koopersmith of Akin Gump concluded:

“It is hard not to feel the gulf that exists between the promise of our countries and the reality that continues to exist for people of color. I have no answers, but I do think that it is crucial that we take the time to digest events and reflect on what this says about us and how much more there is to be done to achieve the level of dignity, respect and equality that everyone deserves.”

Here at Eisenberg and Baum, we made a statement of our own, promising to advocate against racial discrimination and to listen to people of color to improve our support of the Black community going forward.

Law Firm Diversity Remains an Elusive Challenge

The drive to publicly denounce racism and support Black Lives Matter was strongest while people were still in the streets protesting. Nearly a year later, one of the police officers involved in his killing is on trial, reminding America that change, especially in the legal world, often takes time. Sometimes when the spotlight turns elsewhere, it can be easy to return to business as usual. Conway Ekpo, in-house counsel at a major Wall Street bank told Bloomberg Law:

“I’m not extremely confident that the Big Law industry will actually work on a diversity pipeline expansion for altruistic reasons. . . . If we want to see a paradigm shift on this issue, clients will have to literally demand that racially diverse lawyers be recruited to work on their matters and promoted at the same rates as their white counterparts.”

The most recent reports on diversity in law firms appear to bear this out. The National Association for Law Placement’s 2020 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms found that only 5% of associate attorneys were Black. At the partner level, that number dropped to just 2%.

This is not a problem that is likely to resolve quickly. The American Bar Association monitors minority enrollment in ABA accredited law schools. In 2019, Black enrollment dropped by more than 4%. Fewer Black law students means the firms like Akin Gump that promised to recruit minority attorneys will have fewer candidates to fill their diversity and inclusion programs.

The disparity is especially profound for Black women, who make up less than 1% of all partners in U.S. law firms in the NALP report. Ernest Greer, co-president of Greenberg Traurig in Atlanta told Bloomberg:

“The Black male has received attention because of George Floyd. . . . The white female has had attention for maybe the last 10 or 15 years. So, what does that mean for the Black female?”

That double-discrimination could even be seen among the protests. While George Floyd’s name became synonymous with the movement, and was featured in federal legislation regulating police, Breonna Taylor needed a separate hashtag #sayhername just to be mentioned among those wrongfully killed by police misconduct.

Black Lawyers Give Justice a Familiar Face

The need for Black and POC attorneys is profound. Minorities are highly over-represented in criminal prosecutions, prisons, and as the victims of workplace discrimination. With few Black attorneys and judges in the courtroom, these individuals can feel that the government is against them. As Judge Edward M. Chen, the first Asian American appointed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, said:

“The case for diversity is especially compelling for the judiciary. It’s the business of the courts to dispense justice fairly and administer the laws equally. It’s the branch of government ultimately charged with safeguarding constitutional rights, particularly protecting the rights of vulnerable and disadvantaged minorities against encroachment by the majority.

“How can the public have confidence in such an institution if the communities it’s supposed to protect are excluded from its ranks?”

Still, among all U.S. District and Court of Appeals judges, people of color make up just 27% of all active judges. Only thirteen percent of active judges are Black.

Get Help with Racial Discrimination in Law

Racial discrimination in law firms can take many forms, from harassment to lack of mentorship or promotion opportunities. Many of these are illegal under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and state anti-discrimination laws. Black and minority attorneys don’t have to wait for the legal industry to offer them fair treatment. They can push the industry forward through strategic litigation.

At Eisenberg & Baum, we are committed to fighting against racism, even in our own industry. Our employment discrimination attorneys can help Black lawyers and law students file racial discrimination claims against firms who pass them over because of their color. We will push for industry-wide changes and improved diversity and inclusion in the legal industry. If you have been the victim racial discrimination, contact us. We’ll meet with you and help create a strategy that protects your rights and advocates for your equality.

The Justice Department under President Joe Biden has voluntarily withdrawn its lawsuit claiming that the Yale application process violated Title XI’s prohibition against racial discrimination. However, the move may be more political than precedential, as a conservative advocacy group stands ready to take Yale, Harvard, and several other universities’ Affirmative Action policies to the highest court.

Justice Department Drops Effort to Undermine Race-Based Yale Application Process

On August 13, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice under President Trump, issued a press release claiming that Yale University’s admissions process illegally discriminated against Asian-Americans and white applicants. The Yale admissions requirements encouraged assessors to consider the “whole person,” including how their race or national origin could contribute to the diversity of the university’s community. The Trump administration said this was illegal racial discrimination under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. When Yale refused the Justice Department’s demands to exclude race and national origins from its 2020 admissions policy, the agency took the university to court.

However, the new year brought a new administration, and a different take on the way racial minorities should be treated. On February 3, 2021, just two weeks after President Biden’s inauguration, the Justice Department filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,” dropping the case. In a statement issued at the same time, the agency based its decision on “all available facts, circumstances and legal developments.”

Harvard Affirmative Action Admissions Policy Upheld Appeal

One such legal development was the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in a parallel case against Harvard University’s affirmative action policy. Issued less than one month after the Justice Department filed its Yale University complaint, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College upheld the university’s use of race as one factor among many in its admissions process.

The Court said that Harvard’s use of race was an appropriate part of an effort to reach out to Black and Latino students. It noted that the university “has already reached, or at least very nearly reached, the maximum returns in increased socioeconomic and racial diversity that can reasonably be achieved through outreach and reducing the cost of a Harvard education.” The University’s campus population would likely look very different if it did not use adjustments to its application process to supplement its financial aid and outreach programs.

The Justice Department was not a party in the Harvard case. It was filed by a group of Asian-American students backed by the conservative advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions. However, under the Trump Administration, the Justice Department had supported the Asian-American plaintiffs and argued against Affirmative Action on their behalf.  The organization has also filed similar lawsuits against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas.

Affirmative Action Lawsuits, Appeals Likely to Continue

Even with the Harvard decision and the Justice Department’s decision to withdraw the Yale University lawsuit, it seems likely that Affirmative Action will make its way back to the U.S. Supreme Court. Students for Fair Admissions has already expressed its intent to take up the case against Yale. It’s motion to intervene into the government’s case was denied in October. However, the group will likely now refile the case on its own.

At the same time, the group has filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Harvard case, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question of Affirmative Action once again. The Harvard and Yale policies including race as one non-determinative factor were based on two 2003 cases against the University of Michigan. However, the new, more conservative makeup of the Supreme Court could mean restrictions, or even an end to pro-diversity racial considerations at colleges and universities across the state.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our discrimination attorneys understand how Affirmative Action can be used to fight against systemic racial discrimination, and what happens when those efforts end up working against students and employees of colleges and universities. If you believe your school has been discriminating against you because of your race, we can help you review your options and protect your rights. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a discrimination attorney.