KANSAS CITY – On June 26, a media company was denied its renewed motion for judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri’s Western Division in a racial discrimination case filed by a former employee.
A jury found for Lisa Benson Cooper on her two retaliation claims and awarded her nearly $200,000 in actual and punitive damages in her case against Scripps Media Inc., doing business as KSH-TV41. She alleged in her lawsuit that she was denied a promotion to a weekend anchor and a promotion to a consumer investigative reporter because of her race. She also alleged she was retaliated against for her complaints of discrimination and for filing her lawsuit.
Scripps filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the argument that it was entitled to judgment on the retaliation claims, which Judge Beth Phillips denied June 26.
Scripps addressed Cooper's 2018 retaliation claim and argued it didn’t renew Cooper’s contract for several reasons, including that she shared a Facebook post that other employees said was insulting to white women. She also posted an African proverb that reads, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth,” which the defendant said was a threat against the news station, the ruling states.
“The jury could have credited defendant’s explanations – but it was not obligated to do so," Phillips wrote. "A jury can reject an employer’s explanation because it is contracted by other evidence.”
As for the evidence, Phillips said it’s possible the jury determined the Facebook comment wasn’t insulting to white women but could have just been discussion on a newsworthy topic. The African proverb was also in relation to the film "Black Panther."
Considering this and other aspects, Phillips determined Scripps wasn’t owed judgment in Cooper’s 2018 retaliation claim.
As for another retaliation claim Cooper filed over a 2015 incident, the claims stem from a meeting where Cooper’s boss allegedly made comments that upset Cooper. She then wrote emails to her boss and a human resources representative. She alleged she was called to detail her concerns to the HR representative and despite a policy that says the HR representative was supposed to relay the concerns to the boss, the supervisor said she wasn’t informed about anything. The supervisor alleged when she decided to suspend Cooper two days later, she wasn’t aware of the comments Cooper made to human resources.
Phillips pointed out that amid another HR worker’s testimony that their policy calls for them to alert a supervisor about an employee’s concerns, the jury could believe that the boss was actually told about Cooper’s complaints, even though she said she wasn’t.
The company also said that it can’t be held responsible for punitive damages since its witnesses said they felt the defendant acted within its legal rights. Phillips wrote that "this is not an accurate statement of the law."
For the 2015 claim specifically, Scripps said the $50,000 in punitive Cooper was awarded was more than the allotted limit in the due process clause. Phillips disagreed.
“Given the amount of the award (particularly as compared to the other factors the jury was instructed to consider), the court does not believe that the punitive damages awarded for the 2015 retaliation claim were constitutionally excessive,” she wrote.