Hughes v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
304 F. Supp. 3d 429
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Hughes, a frequent unpaid Fox guest commentator, alleges that Charles Payne (a Fox host) raped her in 2013 and then coerced her into a quid-pro-quo sexual relationship in exchange for on-air appearances and the prospect of a full-time contributor contract.
- Hughes claims Payne and Fox controlled her appearances, appearance, topics, and limited her outside opportunities; when she ended the relationship in June 2015, her Fox appearances dropped sharply and she was allegedly blacklisted industry-wide.
- In June 2017 Hughes reported the 2013 rape to Fox; Fox’s outside counsel purportedly sought a "business solution" rather than investigation; Fox communications personnel fed a statement from Payne to the National Enquirer and Hughes’s identity was later deduced and private emails were leaked.
- Hughes sued under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL for gender discrimination, failure-to-hire, and retaliation; she also asserted New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act and multiple defamation claims arising from the National Enquirer statement and leaks.
- On Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion, the Court (Pauley, J.) dismissed some individual- and claim-specific counts but allowed most employment-related claims (failure-to-hire and retaliation) and discrimination claims to proceed; several claims against Fox personnel and certain defamation and GMVA counts were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee status for Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL | Hughes contends her frequent, controlled appearances and promised contributor contract made her an employee or at least covered by state/city statutes | Fox argues Hughes was unpaid and received only incidental benefits, so she was not an "employee" under Second Circuit test | Court: Not an employee for Title VII (remuneration insufficient); state/city intern-like protections inapplicable given facts, but failure-to-hire/other claims still viable |
| Failure-to-hire (seeking full-time contributor position) | Hughes alleges Fox and Payne repeatedly evaluated and promised she was a candidate and blocked her via blacklisting | Fox says no formal application or open position; at most expressions of interest | Court: Pleading sufficient — inference that Fox considered and continued to evaluate Hughes supports failure-to-hire claim under federal and state law |
| Retaliation (blacklisting and leaks) | Hughes says rejecting/ending the sexual relationship and later reporting constituted protected activity; subsequent reduction of appearances and industry blacklisting were retaliatory | Fox contends blacklisting predated report and that providing Payne's statement to the Enquirer was a permissible defensive measure | Court: Retaliation claim based on blacklisting and loss of appearances survives (rejecting narrow view of protected activity); claim based on National Enquirer statement fails (no published ID and defensive/preemptive statement permissible) |
| Defamation (National Enquirer statement) | Hughes contends Fox and Payne knowingly pushed false, non-consensual narrative; even unnamed publication was "of and concerning" her and caused reputational and economic harm | Defendants note the article did not name Hughes, contend lack of actual malice (Hughes is a public figure), and lack of pleaded special damages or per se actionability | Court: Dismissed — Hughes failed to plead actual malice with particularity and did not properly allege per se damages; corporate liability also fails for lack of identified agent with actual malice |
| Individual and aiding/abetting liability (Brandi, Briganti, Payne) | Hughes seeks NYSHRL/NYCHRL liability and aiding/abetting for corporate agents who allegedly participated in retaliation/defamation | Defendants argue Brandi and Briganti lacked supervisory/hiring authority and did not purposefully participate in discriminatory conduct | Court: Brandi and Briganti dismissed from several causes of action (no allegations of direct purposeful participation or supervisory power); Payne remains plausibly liable for retaliation given his supervisory control and threats |
| NYC Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA) | Hughes invokes GMVA based on the alleged 2013 rape and subsequent conduct | Defendants assert GMVA requires showing gender animus/hostility beyond sexual assault | Court: Dismissed — complaint fails to plead that Payne acted with gender-specific animus (hate-based motive) required by GMVA |
Key Cases Cited
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (motion to dismiss accepts well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- United States v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (two-part test for employee status in discrimination cases)
- Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (Reid thirteen-factor agency test)
- York v. Assoc. of the Bar of the City of N.Y., 286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002) (remuneration requirement and substantial benefits for employee status)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
- Richardson v. Comm. on Human Rights & Opportunities, 532 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2008) (employer's reasonable defensive measures may not constitute unlawful retaliation)