Lark v. Post-Newsweek Stations
Connecticut Superior Court
1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3055 (1994)

- Written by Craig Scheer, JD
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…
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.