Robinson v. The Detroit News, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
211 F. Supp. 2d 101 (2002)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Tia Robinson (plaintiff) left her secure job as an account executive with CBS-affiliate WJZ-TV in Baltimore to take an account-executive position at WUSA-TV Channel 9, a division of The Detroit News, Inc. (WUSA) (defendant). Experienced with selling television advertising to new customers, Robinson lacked experience negotiating advertising sales called transactional accounts. Robinson discussed an open account-executive position with Joel Vilmenay, WUSA’s local sales manager. Both Vilmenay and Dianne Downey, WUSA’s vice president of sales, assured Robinson that she would receive appropriate training for the transactional-accounts portion of the job, for which she lacked experience. Dan Sahd, a WUSA account executive present at the second interview, heard Vilmenay state that he would give Robinson the training necessary to complete the job. WUSA hired Robinson to focus on new advertising sales. Robinson accepted the job under the belief that WUSA would train her regarding transactional accounts. The position was at-will with no written or oral agreement for a term of employment. Robinson received allegedly insufficient training in the first month on transactional business, including glossary terms, math exercises, and on-the-job training. WUSA fired Robinson after six months, citing her failure to generate new business and inability to grasp mathematical concepts. Robinson sued WUSA for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith, and gender discrimination. WUSA moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Urbina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.
