Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Broadcasting Co.

753 F. Supp. 452 (1990)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Broadcasting Co.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
753 F. Supp. 452 (1990)

Facts

Enid Roth (plaintiff), a female, was an experienced director of televised studio events, but she wanted to be a sports director (i.e., to direct live sporting events). Roth’s employer, the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC) (defendant) gave Roth two opportunities to direct live sporting events. But NBC was dissatisfied with Roth’s performance, believing Roth displayed insufficient creativity and leadership. Instead of hiring Roth, NBC hired several males as sports directors. Per NBC, these males had the creativity and initiative to be sports directors. NBC also did not hire Roth as an associate director for its coverage of Olympic weightlifting. NBC instead assigned that job to a male who had worked on a prior Olympics and who was recommended by the weightlifting event’s producer. Per Roth, NBC’s refusal to hire her as a sports director or associate director was at least partially due to sex-based discrimination. In support of that contention, Roth cited statements by male NBC employees that Roth would not want to hear the bad language that was common in connection with sporting events and would not want to enter locker rooms. However, the men who made those statements were not involved in NBC’s hiring for the relevant jobs. Roth’s union filed a sex-discrimination complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) against NBC with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) on Roth’s behalf. After an investigation, the EEOC sued NBC for, among other things, discriminating against Roth by not hiring her as a sports director. Roth intervened as a plaintiff, asserting, among other things, sex discrimination regarding NBC’s refusal to hire her to be a sports director or associate director. In response, NBC argued that Roth was unqualified for the relevant jobs. In the alternative, NBC argued that the males it hired for the relevant jobs were more qualified than Roth. The district court conducted a bench trial.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership