Gannett’s Honolulu Advertiser has fended off a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination. As reported over the weekend, Senior Judge Sam King granted Gannett’s motion for summary judgement and dismissed the case.
In the suit, a former Advertiser employee alleged editorial and opinion editor Jeanne Mariani-Belding created a hostile work environment by maing numerous disparaging remarks about Filipino employees and political figures, and later “admitted making the racial statements”.
Advertiser editor Mark Platte is quoted in the story about the dismissal.
“We are pleased that The Advertiser and Jeanne Mariani-Belding, our editorial and opinion editor, have prevailed in this case and that Judge King clearly recognized that the case had no merit. Jeanne’s career has been all about championing diversity and she has been a mentor to many journalists who know that she has fought tirelessly on their behalf. Jeanne has held her head high during this whole ordeal and her integrity and character have never been in question.”
Not so fast. Although Judge King indeed said the legal case had no merit, it was not because he found Mariani-Belding’s behavior exemplary. Reading through the memo in support of Gannett’s motion for summary judgement and Judge King’s 19-page ruling, it’s clear that the case was dismissed on technical legal grounds.
Even if Mariani-Belding made all the comments attributed to her, it didn’t add up to discrimination.
Judge King wrote:
Mariani-Belding’s alleged remarks to Poblete could certainly have been insensitive, inappropriate, and offensive (especially coming from a supervisor and editorial-page editor of a major newspaper, who is or was a national president of the Asian American Journalists Association). There is at least a question of fact in
that regard.2 A jury might well find them unbecoming an editor or supervisor. However, the relevant question is whether they could in total constitute a “pervasive” and “severe” hostile environment. The standard is both objective and subjective. The bar is relatively high. “Stray remarks” are generally insufficient.
He goes on:
Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that the remarks were “offhand comments, and isolated incidents” that did not “change the terms and conditions of employment.” Id. The individual comments, even if offensive, were “the ordinary trials and tribulations of the workplace” and “sporadic use of abusive language.” Id.3
This does not excuse the remarks. They were racial in nature and could have been perceived as offensive. The environment might even have been “hostile” in other respects (e.g., slamming the door after yelling at Plaintiff). However, the comments or incidents were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that there was a “hostile work environment” based on race in violation of federal law.
There’s more in the court file offering insights into the Advertiser newsroom. I’ll provide links to more of those after our early morning walk.
