Lark v. Post-Newsweek Stations

1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3055 (1994)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lark v. Post-Newsweek Stations

Connecticut Superior Court
1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3055 (1994)

CS

Facts

Don Lark (plaintiff) worked as a television-news anchor for Post-Newsweek Stations, Connecticut, Inc. (PNS) (defendant). A letter agreement between Lark and PNS stated that Lark would be on-air during two specific time slots. The talent contract that was incorporated into the letter agreement (together, employment agreement) permitted PNS to keep Lark off-air provided PNS continued to pay Lark his salary (pay-no-play provision). Believing he was about to be replaced in his designated time slots with another anchor, Lark sued PNS for anticipatory breach of his employment agreement. Lark sought to specifically enforce the employment agreement through injunctive relief that would prevent PNS from taking him off-air during those times. Pointing to the pay-no-play provision, PNS contended that taking Lark off-air would not be a breach of the employment agreement if it continued paying him. PNS also argued that specific enforcement of the employment agreement would violate PNS’s First Amendment rights to editorial control over its newscasts. Lark maintained there was a conflict between the time-slot designation in the letter agreement and the pay-no-play provision in the talent contract and argued the former should control. The employment agreement was lightly negotiated and basically represented a continuation of an existing relationship between the parties that previously had been governed by contracts with terms similar to the employment agreement. During a hearing on Lark’s application for injunctive relief, there was competing testimony on whether losing his assigned on-air time slots would irreparably harm his career. There was also testimony that Lark’s lawsuit was very distracting to other employees in PNS’s newsroom. Following the hearing, PNS invoked the pay-no-play provision, telling Lark it would not air him during those slots but would continue to pay his salary.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Berger, 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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 814,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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