Member of:
Justia Lawyer Rating
badge - The State Bar of California
badge - OCBA
badge - Expertice, Best Personal Injury Attorneys in Orange 2020
badge - lawyers.com

Comcast Wants Justices to fix 9th Circ. Standard in Bias Suit

Comcast Wants Justices To Fix 9th Circ. Standard In Bias SuitComcast pressed the Supreme Court on Thursday to shut down a $20 billion racial bias lawsuit over its refusal to carry an African American-owned production company’s channels, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s revival of the case was rooted in a standard that bucks well-settled precedent.

The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that Entertainment Studios Inc., a production firm owned by former comedian Byron Allen, only needs to show that racial discrimination was one factor in Comcast Corp.’s rejections for the case to move forward. Entertainment Studios need not show racial bias was the decisive factor, the panel concluded.

After securing a high court review of the panel’s decision in June, the media giant insisted in Thursday’s opening brief that the justices should correct the Ninth Circuit’s departure from the “but for” causation standard because the “motivating factor” standard the panel relied on is too broad.

Under the “motivating factor” test, “a party may be held liable for racially discriminatory contracting — and subjected to compensatory and punitive damages — even where it would have made the same contracting decision irrespective of race,” Comcast argued.

The “but for” test would have required Allen’s company to show that Comcast would have carried the studio’s channels “but for” racial bias — in other words, that discrimination tipped the scales towards denial — not just that discrimination was a motivating factor in the studio’s failure to secure a Comcast contract.

Comcast said if the but-for causation had been used, Entertainment Studios’ claims would’ve failed.

“Nothing in plaintiffs’ outlandish [second amended complaint] plausibly suggests that race played any role in Comcast’s decision not to carry ESN’s networks, much less that race was a but-for cause of Comcast’s decision,” Comcast insisted.

Counsel and representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. Entertainment Studios’ response is due in two weeks, and the case is set for argument in November.

The justices’ ultimate determination in Comcast’s case will undoubtedly make waves in a related racial bias suit that Allen’s production firm lodged against Charter Communications Inc., in which Allen contends Charter also refused to carry his studio’s channels because he’s African American.

Both cases were lodged in California federal court several years ago by Allen’s firm alongside the National Association of African American-Owned Media.

While a California federal judge shut down Allen’s case against Comcast in late 2016 — finding Comcast’s refusal to work with Entertainment Studios could’ve been based on legitimate business reasons — a separate judge in the same California court decided to let the Charter case move forward just a few weeks later.

In the Charter case, the judge concluded that “arguably racist” statements made by Charter executives combined with Entertainment Studios’ years of failed efforts to work with Charter supported Allen’s racial bias claims.

After two separate appeals, the Ninth Circuit found Allen’s claims can proceed against both broadcast behemoths in a pair of decisions released in tandem late last year. In the parallel rulings, the panel concluded that the “but-for” causation element wasn’t necessary, and that Allen’s firm need only show racism played a role in the decisions not to contract with him.

Charter lodged its own petition for a Supreme Court review in March, but the justices are still mulling that one over.

Comcast is represented by Miguel A. Estrada, Thomas G. Hungar, Douglas M. Fuchs, Jesse A. Cripps, Bradley J. Hamburger and Samuel Eckman of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Charter is represented by Paul D. Clement, Jeffrey S. Powell, Judson D. Brown, Devin S. Anderson and William K. Lane III of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios are represented by Louis R. Miller, J. Mira Hashmall and David W. Schecter of  target="_blank"Miller Barondess LLP and Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

The cases are Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media et al., case number 18-1171, and Charter Communications Inc. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media et al., case number 18-1185, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

All credit to Anne Cullen of Law360. Additional reporting by Kelcee Griffis and Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Connor Relyea

Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Integrity, competency, and compassion! Dimuth Amaratunga has represented me and counseled me in several matters over the last several years, and each time, I have benefited tremendously from his knowledge, his wisdom and his empathy. He is without a doubt an authority in employment law and personal injury. But most importantly, he has compassion and truly focused on getting the best result for his clients. I am a practicing attorney and I wholeheartedly recommend him and his firm!" David J.
★★★★★
"Back in 2017 I had a bad situation happened at work in LA county. I did not know my rights or what to do. I have nothing but good things to say about the Serendib Law Firm. I worked mainly with Maya L. Serkova. She was always on top of things and replied to all my emails and calls promptly. I was taken care of and couldn't have asked for a better team to have covered my case! I was very impressed with the work ethic. The whole ordeal was very stressful, however, Ms. Serkova helped me navigate the process while responding to my goals. She was wonderful and I was very satisfied with the outcome." Lana D.
★★★★★
Maya L. Serkova is an excellent attorney who really takes care of her clients in employment litigation matters. Ms. Serkova is very knowledgeable, detail oriented, and above all, she delivers the results. She is dedicated to clients' need in each and every case she takes. Ms. Serkova is a strategic litigator and effective negotiator. Her staff is very polite, pleasant and attentive. She always returns phone calls at her earliest convenience and provides updates about a case in a timely manner. It was a real pleasure working with Ms. Serkova. I recommend her as an outstanding Plaintiff's Employment Law Attorney. Anna P.