WSJ: ESPN Anchor Sage Steele Sues Network, Alleging Violation of Free-Speech Rights

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

ESPN anchor Sage Steele sued the network and its parent, Walt Disney Co. , alleging the company retaliated against her for comments she made in a podcast interview, breaching her contract and violating her free-speech rights. 

 

In comments last September on a podcast hosted by former National Football League quarterback Jay Cutler, Ms. Steele touched on political and social topics, questioning Covid-19 vaccine mandates and former President Barack Obama’s decision to identify as Black instead of biracial. 

 

After Ms. Steele’s remarks drew criticism in the press and on social media, ESPN forced her to issue an apology and temporarily benched her, according to the suit, which was served in Connecticut, where the network is based. 

 

ESPN also retaliated by taking away prime assignments and failing to stop bullying and harassment by Ms. Steele’s colleagues, the suit alleges.

Quote

The suit pointed to a provision in Connecticut law that it said prohibits companies from disciplining employees for exercising their First Amendment rights, as long as their statements don’t materially interfere with their performance or working relationship with the company. 

 

Ms. Steele’s podcast interview last September was on “Uncut with Jay Cutler,” a program that isn’t affiliated with ESPN or Disney. The suit said Ms. Steele appeared as a private citizen and wasn’t speaking for her employer. 

 

Ms. Steele told Mr. Cutler that she had recently gotten the Covid-19 vaccine because it was required by Disney and called the mandate “sick” and “scary to me in many ways.” She said she complied to keep her job and support her family.

 

 The veteran “SportsCenter” anchor also talked about her decision to identify as biracial. During the interview with Mr. Cutler, Ms. Steele said she thought it was fascinating that Mr. Obama chose to identify as Black despite having been raised by his white mother and grandmother, while his Black father “was nowhere to be found.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/espn-anchor-sage-steele-sues-network-alleging-violation-of-free-speech-rights-11651104160?st=23n4gqk7n92a8ak&reflink=desktopwebshare_twitter

Lol

[Renegade7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 1st Amendment protect you from the Government, not ESPN?

Edited April 28, 2022 by Renegade7

[GoCommiesGo]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 1st Amendment protect you from the Government, not ESPN?

That would be correct, a company just can't discriminate based on protected classes.

 

A lot of companies have ethics or moral clauses in their contracts, they may have triggered the clause based on her statements.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 1st Amendment protect you from the Government, not ESPN?

 

Yes.  But it appears this suit is citing a Connecticut law that applies that standard partially to private companies. 

[Rocky21]

I’m sure this lawsuit will fix everything with her employer! 😀

Edited April 28, 2022 by Rocky21

[spjunkies]

Ugh, mark her down as a former crush that I regret. Used to look forward to seeing her when she was local. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

23 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

The suit pointed to a provision in Connecticut law that it said prohibits companies from disciplining employees for exercising their First Amendment rights, as long as their statements don’t materially interfere with their performance or working relationship with the company. 

 

Regardless of your opinions on what she said (I haven't listened or read a transcript), this seems like she might have a legal stance here. I would think she and her lawyer should be able to make the case that within the context of what she does (sports reporting/broadcasting) having opinions on social issues shouldn't interfere with her performance or relationship. I would interpret those things to be statements that disparage the company or directly bash a corporate sponsor/league figure. 

 

I'm not saying she'll get her job or standing back, but I'm assuming she'll get a pay out here. I'm assuming these cases are why this provision exists in the state law. I have to say, I'm a little surprised it exists though...I guess it varies state to state, but I always thought a company could let you go or "bench you" without much justification or explanation. Maybe that's just Virginia. 

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I guess it varies state to state, but I always thought a company could let you go or "bench you" without much justification or explanation. Maybe that's just Virginia. 

 

So just checked, one difference between our two states is Connecticut is not a right-to-work state...so when I read that, my assumption (maybe wrong) is to expect better protection for employees in Connecticut then Virginia.

 

https://www.findlaw.com/state/connecticut-law/connecticut-right-to-work-laws.html#:~:text=Connecticut is not a “right,is still up for debate.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't really care what she said.  When you're famous for being something like...oh, I don't know, a sportscenter anchor and you make an appearance on a show, private or not, that's what people associate you with.  I mean, if it weren't for ESPN, no one would know who Sage Steele is.  She might think it's unfair to view her that way, but how can you not?  She's synonymous with ESPN, like it or not.

 

I'm fairly certain that she's an african-american conservative which I'm sure Disney/ESPN isn't happy about either.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

17 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I don't really care what she said.  When you're famous for being something like...oh, I don't know, a sportscenter anchor and you make an appearance on a show, private or not, that's what people associate you with.  I mean, if it weren't for ESPN, no one would know who Sage Steele is.  She might think it's unfair to view her that way, but how can you not?  She's synonymous with ESPN, like it or not.

 

I'm fairly certain that she's an african-american conservative which I'm sure Disney/ESPN isn't happy about either.

 

So what? 

 

If there's a law to protect her against such things, it doesn't matter if you think she was in the wrong to speak her mind or you think she would be associated with the show. Given the direction Disney is going and if Steele is a conservative, I'm sure that's playing into things too. But, in the end, if there's a law in place in ESPN's state prohibiting them from "benching" her, then she will win this case. 

[PleaseBlitz]

This just proves the age-old adage that nothing good ever comes from being around Jay Cutler. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

28 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

So what? 

 

If there's a law to protect her against such things, it doesn't matter if you think she was in the wrong to speak her mind or you think she would be associated with the show. Given the direction Disney is going and if Steele is a conservative, I'm sure that's playing into things too. But, in the end, if there's a law in place in ESPN's state prohibiting them from "benching" her, then she will win this case. 

 

She can speak her mind all she wants and quite frankly I don't care what she says or what party she affiliates herself with.

 

I just think she's being intentionally obtuse to claim that she went on a podcast thinking that it wouldn't reflect on ESPN.  I don't think she's a dumb person so the fact that she doesn't understand why her employer took umbrage with her is, to say the least, odd.

 

If she wins, good for her.  

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

She can speak her mind all she wants and quite frankly I don't care what she says or what party she affiliates herself with.

 

I just think she's being intentionally obtuse to claim that she went on a podcast thinking that it wouldn't reflect on ESPN.  I don't think she's a dumb person so the fact that she doesn't understand why her employer took umbrage with her is, to say the least, odd.

 

If she wins, good for her.  

 

 

I see your point, I do. But, then we have to wonder why laws like that exist if an employee can't expect an employer to abide by them or believe in them? 

 

Should she also not take maternity leave because, even though it's required by law that she get it, does she really think she can just pick up right where she left off even though others haven't left for several months and have been working all along? There's a reason that law exists - for situations just like that. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I see your point, I do. But, then we have to wonder why laws like that exist if an employee can't expect an employer to abide by them or believe in them? 

 

Should she also not take maternity leave because, even though it's required by law that she get it, does she really think she can just pick up right where she left off even though others haven't left for several months and have been working all along? There's a reason that law exists - for situations just like that. 

 

Yep, I get that the law exists, too.  And clearly ESPN didn't know (hard to believe) or doesn't care (easier to believe).  I'm assuming ESPN probably thought that Steele is lucky to have a job and wouldn't try to sue.  

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

The suit pointed to a provision in Connecticut law that it said prohibits companies from disciplining employees for exercising their First Amendment rights

 

Has anyone actually dug up and read the Connecticut law?  Looks like everyone is making legal judgements based on what Ms. Steele's attorneys say it says.  

 

I'll do it if you all chip in $500. 

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Has anyone actually dug up and read the Connecticut law?  Looks like everyone is making legal judgements based on what Ms. Steele's attorneys say it says.  

 

I'll do it if you all chip in $500. 

 

Proving once again... that everybody's got a price. 

 

 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

That’s a pornstar name 

 

since when did espn start hiring porn stars 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Dr. Do Itch Big

[Fergasun]

I read the lawsuit.  I thought the right-wing and conservatives hates social justice warriors? 

 

She is arguing that she could dress in full Klansman robe, march in a KKK rally, and piss off all her co-workers and the public and this should have no impact on her public-facing job. I am sorry, but ESPN was reacting to public backlash for your unpopular comments.  Maybe you think public backlash to unpopular opinions is unfair... go ahead and start arguing "cannibalism should be legal, I am curious about the taste of human flesh" on Jay Cutler's podcast and see what that does to your career. Last I checked, most jobs have a "getting along with your co-workers is part of your job" performance metric and certainly media jobs would have a "don't piss off the public" performance metric.

 

She is fishing for a settlement and a job at some right-wing funded/supported media organization.  I didn't see anywhere where she linked loss of any of those jobs to a loss of money under her current contract.  Seemingly they choose to put her on the air without impact to her pay.  What she is arguing is that ESPN is costing her prestige and money in the future by withholding company gigs from her.  

[PleaseBlitz]

29 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Last I checked, most jobs have a "getting along with your co-workers is part of your job" performance metric and certainly media jobs would have a "don't piss off the public" performance metric.

 

This is also evidently an important point for the legal argument.  Here is an analysis of the law by an actual labor and employment lawyer (from 2016). 

 

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/there-are-limits-to-connecticut-s-55058/

 

Quote

Finally, the employee must also show that his speech did not substantially or materially interfere with his bona fide job performance or with his working relationship with his employer.  In other words, even if the employee spoke out on a matter of public concern, the employer can discharge or discipline him for that reason if the speech results in a material deterioration in the employee’s job performance or seriously harms his working relationships.

 

It's a good read to give the law some context, it is FAR more limited than people seem to think.

 

 

Edit:  Agree completely that she is fishing for a settlement since her time at ESPN is now done, and her next act will be a token anchor with some right-wing media outlet. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by PleaseBlitz

[bearrock]

The first amendment claim doesn't appear to be her strongest cause of action.  How do you call your employer's policy sick and scary and not expect it to harm your working relationship with the employer?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Good find, @PleaseBlitz. That does seem to give ESPN a lot of leeway to get around it any way they need to. They can simply bring a couple co-workers forward who can say they were bothered by her comments. 

[PleaseBlitz]

12 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Good find, @PleaseBlitz. That does seem to give ESPN a lot of leeway to get around it any way they need to. They can simply bring a couple co-workers forward who can say they were bothered by her comments. 

 

Yep.  The other element that appears to work against her, maybe, is whether she was on the podcast in an official capacity or just as an individual.  First, i haven't heard the podcast but think it's likely that she was introduced as "SportsCenter Anchor Sage Steele" or something similar.  Second, would she even have been on a sports-related podcast but for her job at ESPN?  Prolly not. 

[tshile]

Fits well with the anti-Disney rhetoric she’d be catering to working for those media companies. 
 

Look at the tucker Carlson Twitter account reinstated cause of musk when musk isn’t even in control yet

 

Put the right spin on your opening serve and the truth will never matter 

 

She’s suing because as a conservative her liberal rag employer fired her for saying what she thinks. 
 

nothing else matters. Mission accomplished. The rest is just a formality