1:19-cv-03200
N.D. Ga.Jan 7, 2022Background
- Ossman, a white meteorologist, was hired by Meredith (CBS46) and promoted to chief meteorologist in 2017 under a four-year contract permitting termination for "cause."
- Over 2017–2019 three female coworkers complained about Ossman’s sexually inappropriate comments/messages; Meredith issued at least one written warning and later suspended him pending investigation.
- Station managers Doerr and Banks recommended termination for repeated harassment; HR (Berenguer) prepared a corporate "Form" including an EEO Analysis; corporate HR (Bock) authorized the firing and Ossman was discharged in April 2019; his replacement was a woman of color.
- Ossman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination—disparate discipline and discriminatory discharge) and for breach of contract; he abandoned Title VII, ADEA, and hostile-work-environment claims.
- Ossman submitted a declaration at summary judgment contradicting his deposition about harassment-training recollections; the magistrate judge applied the sham-affidavit doctrine and largely disregarded those portions.
- The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for Meredith on all remaining claims, finding no direct evidence of racial animus, insufficient comparator evidence for disparate-discipline, and no proof of pretext as to the discharge or breach-of-contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Ossman’s Argument | Meredith’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Ossman’s declaration (sham-affidavit) | Declaration refreshed memory and clarifies deposition; shows policy scope favoring him | Declaration contradicts clear deposition testimony and lacks plausible explanation for change | Court disregarded inconsistent portions as sham testimony |
| Direct evidence: EEO Analysis/Form as proof of race-based decision | Form’s EEO data shows an informal/invalid affirmative-action practice and is direct evidence of discrimination | Form was a routine HR template used after managers had recommended discharge; no evidence EEO data drove the decision | Not direct evidence—mere collection of demographic data is not proof of discrimination |
| Disparate discipline (comparator: Sharon Reed) | Reed had multiple complaints but was not disciplined—shows discriminatory discipline against Ossman | Reed’s misconduct was non-sexual (abrasive/perfectionist) and did not violate harassment policy like Ossman’s conduct | Not similarly situated; summary judgment for Meredith on disparate-discipline claim |
| Discriminatory discharge / pretext & breach of contract | Replacement outside protected class + alleged procedural irregularities/EEO Form suggest pretext; contract forbids arbitrary/capricious firings | Doerr and Banks (primary decisionmakers) discharged Ossman for repeated sexual-harassment policy violations; HR honestly believed violations occurred; no evidence race was but-for cause | Ossman established prima facie for discharge (replacement), but failed to show pretext or that nondiscriminatory reason was false; breach claim fails—no evidence of bad-faith exercise of contractual discretion; summary judgment recommended for Meredith |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden shifting and movant’s initial burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial employment-discrimination claims)
- Van T. Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656 (sham-affidavit rule forbidding contradictions of clear deposition testimony)
- Damon v. Fleming Supermkts. of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (definition of direct evidence and pretext analysis when employer cites a work rule)
- Earley v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077 (examples of direct evidence and decisionmaker remarks)
- Bass v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Orange Cnty., 256 F.3d 1095 (when an affirmative-action plan can be treated as direct evidence and plaintiff’s burden to show invalidity)
- Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 ("convincing mosaic" doctrine for circumstantial evidence of discrimination)