A former Bloomberg Television anchor has sued the network, alleging that the network engaged in a years-long pattern of discriminating against her because of her age and sex. Both the trial court and, recently, the Appellate Division, have ruled that the anchor has a viable case upon which she may proceed, even though a portion of the discrimination she encountered happened more than three years earlier. The anchor’s success demonstrates how the “continuing violation doctrine” may help workers harmed by prolonged patterns of discrimination. To learn about your options if you believe you have been hurt by illegal sex discrimination, get in touch with a New York sex discrimination lawyer right away.
The anchor, who had worked for Bloomberg TV for more than 20 years, alleged that she faced a series of disadvantages because of her age and sex. According to the journalist’s complaint, Bloomberg’s managers started in 2019 “deliberately skewing the written portion of her Evaluations to downplay or omit her achievements each year, despite verbally praising her,” a practice that continued through 2023. Additionally, the journalist alleged that bosses began pressuring her “to work past midnight on an almost daily basis while male and younger TV peers were not being treated” similarly.
Once the employee spoke out against schedule changes that “only impacted the two oldest female BTV newscasters,” the network began phasing her out by giving her assignments to younger colleagues, according to the lawsuit.
The network tried to derail the woman’s claims by arguing that they were too old and time-barred under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law’s statutes of limitations. This argument did not succeed. Both the trial court and the appellate division concluded that the employee put forward enough to demonstrate a potential continuing violation.
Both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL have established three-year statutes of limitations, and New York City law prohibits the enforcement of contract provisions that contractually shorten that deadline.
The Continuing Violation Doctrine
Generally, that means that any discrimination or harassment that took place more than three years before you sued could not be the foundation of a successful lawsuit. In some circumstances, however, older misconduct may be actionable. The continuing violation doctrine says that, even if certain acts were outside the three-year limitations period, they may be part of the basis of a successful lawsuit if they were part of a singular continuous pattern or practice of discrimination, and at least one act in the continuing violation fell within the law’s three-year limitations period.
In the anchor’s case, she alleged that the pattern and practice of discriminating against her continued at least into 2023, making the continuing violation within the three-year period and the lawsuit timely under the statute of limitations.
The courts also rejected the network’s argument that the anchor’s allegations, even if proven true, were insufficient to make out a viable discrimination claim. As the Appellate Division court pointed out in its opinion, the employee adequately put forward a case that the network treated her less well because of her age and sex in terms of “promotions and career progression.” Specifically, the appeals court noted that the anchor had “alleged, among other things, that she was forced to work past midnight while younger or male peers were assigned to earlier, higher-profile hours.” The complaint also contended that the network had denied assignments to energy and cryptocurrency stories, even though those topics were her specialties, but had increasingly assigned those to younger, less experienced reporters. The network furthermore allegedly denied the woman critical equipment for remote work while providing that equipment to male and younger employees.
“These allegations, if proven, may give rise to an inference of discrimination,” the appeals court summed up.
According to the law, you generally only have three years to sue for discrimination. However, you may potentially be able to pursue accountability for older acts of discrimination if they were part of a larger pattern and at least one of those acts occurred within the law’s three-year statutory period. If you have questions about whether the discrimination you experienced is actionable under New York law, talk to the knowledgeable employment discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates, PLLC. Our team is here to help you understand your rights and the options available to you. To find out more, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to set up a free and confidential consultation today.