Apologies to the regulars for wading in every few years on a random, non-Sabres topic, but just wanted to comment on this issue and provide some (maybe) context about what Roenick's case possibly looks like, mostly to cut through the BS.
I have seen several posters reference sexual harassment. This case is not necessarily about sexual harassment, but rather whether NBC treated Roenick differently than a similarly situated employee outside of his alleged protected classification. Roenick is alleging he was discriminated against because he is straight and engaged in substantially similar behavior as a co-worker, apparently sexual harassment, and was treated differently than Weir and, to a lesser extent, Lipinsky. While I do not know New York state or Second Circuit precedent (and without doing the research), it seems likely that the traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis would apply, and the following assumes this. I agree with Eleven that the holding of Bostock means that the sexual orientation of "straight" is now protected. I do not know what the treatment of "similarly-situated" is in New York, but down south, the Eleventh Circuit has recently clarified that "similarly situated" means similarly situated in all material respects. It seems unlikely that a part-time Olympic commentator is similarly situated to a full-time NHL analyst; I have to believe that there are different reporting structures, managers, etc.
Even assuming that Roenick could articulate a prima facie case (i.e., he belongs to a protected classification, was qualified for his position, suffered an adverse action, and was treated differently than a similarly-situated co-worker), NBC will be able to articulate that it had a legitimate business reason for terminating his employment for making lewd comments about co-workers. Regardless of whether those comments occurred in the workplace is irrelevant. Roenick cannot unring that bell and claim that just because it happened outside of work means NBC must ignore it. Again, like Eleven acknowledged, had NBC not done anything, Tappen and Sharp could have a viable sexual harassment claims against NBC. In those situations, NBC's legal duty is to take prompt remedial action when it learns of potentially harassing behavior; it did, which was Roenick's termination.
Roenick bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that NBC's legitimate reason for his termination was mere pretext for illegal discrimination. He needs evidence, not his own subjective beliefs. That is, he needs to show that but for his sexual orientation, he would not have been terminated. While Bostock watered down the but-for analysis (my opinion), this is still a hurdle.
This presupposes that the parties are going to throw down, litigate the snot of this case, and, if NBC does not win summary judgment, take the case to trial. A lot of ifs here.
TL;DR - This is likely a move to leverage settlement and I would not be surprised to see in a few months a statement that both sides have agreed to resolve this case confidentially.
Apologies to the regulars for wading in every few years on a random, non-Sabres topic, but just wanted to comment on this issue and provide some (maybe) context about what Roenick's case possibly looks like, mostly to cut through the BS. I have seen several posters reference sexual harassment. This case is not necessarily about sexual harassment, but rather whether NBC treated Roenick differently than a similarly situated employee outside of his alleged protected classification. Roenick is alleging he was discriminated against because he is straight and engaged in substantially similar behavior as a co-worker, apparently sexual harassment, and was treated differently than Weir and, to a lesser extent, Lipinsky. While I do not know New York state or Second Circuit precedent (and without doing the research), it seems likely that the traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis would apply, and the following assumes this. I agree with Eleven that the holding of Bostock means that the sexual orientation of "straight" is now protected. I do not know what the treatment of "similarly-situated" is in New York, but down south, the Eleventh Circuit has recently clarified that "similarly situated" means similarly situated in all material respects. It seems unlikely that a part-time Olympic commentator is similarly situated to a full-time NHL analyst; I have to believe that there are different reporting structures, managers, etc. Even assuming that Roenick could articulate a prima facie case (i.e., he belongs to a protected classification, was qualified for his position, suffered an adverse action, and was treated differently than a similarly-situated co-worker), NBC will be able to articulate that it had a legitimate business reason for terminating his employment for making lewd comments about co-workers. Regardless of whether those comments occurred in the workplace is irrelevant. Roenick cannot unring that bell and claim that just because it happened outside of work means NBC must ignore it. Again, like Eleven acknowledged, had NBC not done anything, Tappen and Sharp could have a viable sexual harassment claims against NBC. In those situations, NBC's legal duty is to take prompt remedial action when it learns of potentially harassing behavior; it did, which was Roenick's termination. Roenick bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that NBC's legitimate reason for his termination was mere pretext for illegal discrimination. He needs evidence, not his own subjective beliefs. That is, he needs to show that but for his sexual orientation, he would not have been terminated. While Bostock watered down the but-for analysis (my opinion), this is still a hurdle. This presupposes that the parties are going to throw down, litigate the snot of this case, and, if NBC does not win summary judgment, take the case to trial. A lot of ifs here. TL;DR - This is likely a move to leverage settlement and I would not be surprised to see in a few months a statement that both sides have agreed to resolve this case confidentially.
