Should Juan Williams Sue NPR?
Juan Williams just got fired by National Public Radio for saying out loud something that 95% of Americans feel — and I would bet my house almost every executive at NPR feels — that he gets nervous when flying in an airplane near people in heavy Muslim garb.
Besides the obvious — that the NPR execs are despicable, self-serving, almost comical hypocrites — the real question is whether Williams has a lawsuit against NPR for restriction of his speech and, if so, whether he would pursue it.
Though it is the NPR execs who have actually befouled their company here, what would militate against such a suit would be the standard clause Williams probably signed giving NPR license to end his contract for blemishing the network’s reputation in some vague manner.
Nevertheless, I would like to see Williams go ahead with legal action. It would be like putting political correctness on trial. This would be a great service to our nation, which has lived under the totalitarian PC yoke for too long. We cannot rely on South Park alone to oppose it. Indeed, the Williams firing would be perfect grist for an episode of South Park with an NPR exec forced to ride next to a Richard Reid-type on a plane, the exec still desperately trying to be politically correct while Reid loaded up his shoe bomb with myriad forms of explosives. (“Do you have athlete’s foot, sir? Would you like some powder?”)
But seriously, folks, NPR, as we all know, makes a show — emphasis on the show — of being politically even-handed, yet they can’t stand a self-avowed liberal speaking honestly about his feelings. It’s worth remembering too the executives of this public corporation have been under attack for their wildly inflated salaries. These are the people who are telling us what is correct speech — in a democracy. Forget South Park. It’s subject matter for Jonathan Swift — and Aristophanes.
UPDATE: Evidently, I am only dreaming here. Law professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh writes:
No; NPR is a nongovernmental entity, and is thus not bound by the First Amendment. That it gets some federal subsidies doesn’t change that. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10176312845394846270.
In fact, it might well have its own First Amendment rights to hire or fire those employees who speak on its own programs based on their speech, even off-program speech. See Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers (Washington Supreme Court 1997), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2967807308826584631. That’s not completely clear, to be sure; but in any case it’s not that important, since I know of no statute or common-law rule that would try to limit NPR’s decisions on this score. And, as I mentioned, the First Amendment certainly doesn’t.
Back to Square One… or South Park.
Of course he should, but he won’t. Juan Williams likes to be loved by everyone, and won’t upset the apple cart. Too bad, they deserve it.
Mr. Simon:
“…the real question is whether Williams has a lawsuit against NPR for restriction of his speech and, if so, whether he would pursue it.”
The real answer is:
Of COURSE he should…it’s the American Way!
Even if he doesn’t win, he’ll still win if he can make NPR stake itself to unpopular ground.
We know that the next Congress will be looking for relatively painless ways to cut Federal spending, and inducing NPR to step right up, unzip, and lay their reproductive “money” organ on the chopping block by publicly espousing such an unpopular radical position would be simply sublime.
NPR could simply have pointed out that since the concept of separation of church and state is strictly a western concept, calling someone a “Muslim” can be as much a political appellation as a religious one, and that Williams was undoubtedly referring to politicized Islam, not the Islam of the faith.
But NPR is a moonbat sweat-lodge, and Williams strayed from the hive-mind’s groupthink, so he needed to be ostracized and separated from the herd of the Faithful, lest he infect the rest of the brainwashed slaves with his honesty.
Williams doesn’t stand a chance. Which doesn’t, of course, mean he shouldn’t pursue it, but George Soros owns NPR and has more money than anyone. He will be hard to fight.
A long PR campaign against NPR would be in order.
This all reminds me of blacks being interviewed after 9/11 about “Racial Profiling” and blacks were totally for it with regards to profiling Muslims.
Oh how the worm turns…
Delia, I’m afraid that you are making an invidious comparison (as much as I agree with the thrust of your comment).
Unless things have changed blacks have no control over their color. Parading your beliefin, and comittment to, a fascist politico/religious doctrine is a choice. You can profile people for the choices they make, not for their unalterable physical characteristics.
A more apt comparison would be Muslims in full garb with Gangstas in tats and leather and colors.
Alan,
A minority BLACK populace commits a MAJORITY of crime in this country. The hilarity that those same BLACKS will support “racial profiling” when it comes to MUSLIMS is hilariously hypocritical.
Sorry, but two grievance groups duking it out is the ultimate Lefty retardation.
As Joe Lieberman found out, there is a problem with a liberal trying to live in the far left extremists’ tent.
The price you pay for being true to “liberal” principles, is excommunication. Blacklisting. Shunning. Firing.
If one is a traditional “JFK liberal” as opposed to being a Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi leftist, or a Michael Moore/Oliver Stone crypto-anarchist…one is not welcome, unless one keeps ones mouth shut.
Yes, indeed there are now many, many examples of leftists destroying what is left of “classic liberals”. They are gone.
And the price of living in the radical extreme leftist tent?
It’s just too damn high.
I respect Juan Williams, not for his views (which I disagree with 95% of the time), but because of his civility when debating his opponents. And I feel sorry that this happened, because it was purely political. In fact, I heard on Rush’s show that now Mara Liasson’s job at NPR is being threatened on trumped-up charges (but more because of her Fox association)
But then again, Juan was living in denial and really should have known better (then again he is a liberal). He thought being liberal meant that he had the freedom to express an unpopular opinion. He was a fool and got burned by the very ideology he espouses.
Well, at least he created a job for opening for Rick Sanchez.
Just watched Juan Williams on O’Reilly and you could see that he was deeply hurt and offended by his treatment. Not only should NPR be de-funded but PBS as well.
Not with my money. Not any more.
Based on a 1982 case, EV decides that NPR is not bound by the 1st Amendment, faugh. Besides, the claim that his speech violated some vague editorial stand (do they have a written policy to support that claim) was just a pre-text to bring in a younger white woman, like Rachel Maddow, to take his place. NPR’s racial lineup demonstrates a clear statistical bias against people of color
Most of the modern liberals I meet are hypocrites. They consistently espouse having people do things they would not do themselves. For example a prominent French politician and former presidential candidate wanted to send one of her children to an acting school in Paris. When she found out it was in the 19th arrondissement, (think West Oakland with fewer guns) she withdrew her request. Didn’t want her kiddies exposed to the people she claims to love, respect and want to help.
I used to religiously listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered when driving to and from work. But those days were a long time ago.
How many hundreds or thousands of radio stations are there in the US? As for TV, my cable provider has hundreds of stations at my beck and call. With such diversity, it is well past time that the Federal Government defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and NPT. They argue that the amount of government subsidy is a small percentage of their overall budget and that it is a pittance compared to other programs. That is all the more reason to cut off the spigot. Then they can hire or fire whomever they choose.
Since Williams was fired for saying something that was far less ‘inflamatory’ than what white commentators on NPR have said, he should sue NPR on the basis of racism.
My prediction is that Juan Williams and NPR will work out their differences and many rooting for Juan and hoping for some change in his political attitude will be disappointed. Fact is, Juan ain’t the sharpest pencil in the box. And he’s more comfortable at NPR than he is at FOX. A bit more reserve is in order.
Boy was I ever wrong. I’m watching this go viral on FOX. Who would have thunk it? Juan Williams. Brilliant Journalist. Nicest guy anyone in the news business ever met. Martyr to principle of a free press. Even Charles Krauthammer is singing his praises.
You can’t make this stuff up. As Yakov Smirnoff used to say, Whatta country!
This is the second time I’ve seen the liberal yo-yos take off on Juan Williams when he has “overstepped” his bounds and spoken a truth that was against the “party line”.
I have said more than once in the past that a government run co-opted media is but one step towards the Soviet style dictatorship that we witnessed with the old USSR. This is beyond Big Brother. This is not only the squashing of Free Speech, but is in fact taking away one of our most sacred rights. And he wasn’t even on an NPR show!
This Political Correctness, which is nothing more than a Gestapo style propaganda issue has to stop!
I for one do not agree with some of Mr. Williams stands. however, he has never been afraid to call it as he sees it and in this case he was correct! To be fired for relating the truth is beyond everything we hold sacred in this country.
Kudos to Mr. Williams for daring to stand up to the kind of censorship that is so warmly welcome by leftist Soviet and NAZI style governments!
I was reading some of the comments left at the NPR site and it is obvious that most people posting there think this was outrageous. It is shocking, even for NPR..to fire someone of Juan Williams’s stature over something like this. Absurd.
Roger, your question has two prongs. Should Juan sue NPR vs. Can Juan successfully sue NPR.
You cite Professor Volokh in your update, suggesting that the two questions must be answered with a “no” vote.
I’m not so sure at this point.
Juan does not appear to be an “at will” employee. For those in that status, they may be fired for any reason or no reason, but not for a discriminatory reason. Let us set aside any “discrimination” claim, although Juan clearly would fall into a “suspect class”, in fact, several of them.
Juan has an employment CONTRACT. The terms of that contract are spelled out, usually with someone of this status more narrowly than one might assume.
It now appears that NPR is basing the firing on clauses that forbid “voicing opinions on controversial matters”, and “going on shows that promote punditry”.
Here’s their legal problem. If they have established a pattern and/or practice of allowing their on air staff to violate those rules with impunity, they may indeed be deemed waived.
And, if there is a history of allowing one “direction” of statements (such as typical left wing diatribes) to be delivered out into the marketplace, and they have shown absolutely NO interest in reprimanding, much less firing, those who engage in the breach of those clauses, then Juan has a sustainable cause of action.
In fact, I would bet heavily that the history of NPR shows that they have NEVER silenced someone for a breach of these very clauses who made controversial statements that went completely along the lines of leftist orthodoxy.
So, let’s call this what it really is. A chilling impact on anyone who dares to speak in terms that is not in line with leftist orthodoxy. The charade that NPR is interested in dialogue has been put to rest. They terminated Juan’s contract without so much as a nanosecond of dialogue on the underlying subject. It was intended to chill his voice, any voice that does not march in lockstep with their hard leftist leanings.
In my opinion, if he can prove a pattern of inconsistency in the enforcement of those clauses in his contract, he has a sound breach of contract suit against them.
“Juan has an employment CONTRACT. The terms of that contract are spelled out, usually with someone of this status more narrowly than one might assume.”
This is the Achilles heel of the NPR position. He has appeared on Fox and rendered opinions for 10 years ! It is a bit like real estate law. If you don’t enforce your rights, they go away. NPR lost their rights under the contract and are very susceptible to a lawsuit although he may choose to go on and leave them alone.
It’s going to be governed by contract law. After all, William’s not an employee, he’s under contract to provide services. In all likelihood, NPR breeched the contract, and is liable to Williams for liquidated damages. The only question is whether NPR chooses to settle these damages quietly (most likely) or through a trial.
If you go to http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx
you can scroll through the options under “I want to” and choose “contact the ombudsman” and then give NPR a piece of your mind. Perhaps if more than 378 people complain about Juan Williams’ firing (the alleged number of highly sensitive NPR listeners who wrote to the ombudsman to demand his firing) he will be hired again. Yes, NPR has behaved unconscionably, but since you are paying every NPR salaries with your tax dollars, why not take a minute to write to these self-righteous troglodytes and demand the return of Juan Williams to NPR. You may never listen to NPR, but it is well worth flooding their contact inboxes with complaints about their idiocy. These self-appointed judges and juries should be exposed to views other than those of their dear, sweet, loyal listeners, who simply cannot bear to hear views ever-so-slightly contrary to their own. Poor, poor darlings.
Why not let them hear from PJM’s mighty army of readers, shall we?
Juan may not have a First Amendment case, but I do wonder if he has a civil wrongful-termination case; it’d be interesting to see the EEOC get involved, seeing as Juan is the only black person left on the air — or rather was.
The claim that it’s termination for violating the terms of his contract by offering an opinion is laughable; he’s been an opinion commentator on Fox and at NPR for a decade. It’s not the fact he offered an opinion — it was the content of that opinion.
As Juan himself just said, it was primarily a message that only certain thoughts, only certain opinions, are acceptable.
IF a court of jurisdiction will give his case (should he decide to sue) legal standing…yes he should sue them.
Heres why! Win or lose, he will be able to bring out the entire Soro’s contributions for hiring “new” reporters at NPR. It would be one of the most frenzied courtroom battles in a good while and in the midst of the 2012 campaign cycle.
Personally, I want him to sue and prevail in damages at least equal to the $1.8M George Soros just donated to NPR.
I generally agree with cfbleachers’ legal analysis above (#13 – October 21, 2010 – 2:48 pm), but I would add this:
Even if Williams can establish that NPR breached its contract with him, it may be hard, perhaps even impossible, for him to demonstrate any damages. Fox just re-signed him “to an expanded role with the network in a multi-year deal,” and he’s unlikely to lose any income on account of the loss of his NPR job.
Williams might also have colorable tort claims — sounding in slander, for damage to his reputation — based on some of NPR’s public comments, but he’s certainly a public figure and would have to jump the “actual malice” hurdle of NYT v. Sullivan to make something like that work.
There may be non-financial reasons for him to sue. A lawsuit might give Williams an opportunity to scrutinize and expose NPR’s internal files and communications — stuff which I suspect would put NPR’s executives into an even more unflattering spotlight than they’re already in.
But I hope — as a long-time fan of Williams — that he won’t sue. In the eyes of a substantial portion of America, he’ll come out of this with his own reputation enhanced, and NPR’s is bound to suffer, perhaps to the point of subjecting it to genuine funding vulnerability. Obama would probably veto any bill that canceled NPR’s existing federal funding, but he can’t force the next Congress to send him a bill that includes further funding.
“But I hope — as a long-time fan of Williams — that he won’t sue.”
If he doesn’t sue, then whatever principles he may have espoused about freedom of speech are given the lie, aren’t they?
In addition to the political aspect of this that I suggested to Mr. Simon above, there is also the fact that the “Chilling Effect” is a bi-directional phenomenon.
At the very least, his lawsuit and the discovery motions that attend to it, will make NPR prove that they had built a “paper trail” on him, and that will cost NPR money.
And then,depending on how aggressive his lawyers want to be, they can demand that any and everyone who signed any and every deleterious document in whatever paper trail there may be to appear and justify what they signed.
When you say that you hope Williams doesn’t sue, you are really saying that you hope he is a “good negro” and goes away quietly when his betters tell him to scram.
I’d be delighted to see Williams’ case taken up by the ACLU with support from the NAACP.
(I’d also be delighted to win the lottery and to have my own fishing show on tee-vee…I reckon that I’ll get those right after the ACLU and NAACP step up to bat for Williams, huh?).
I don’t believe that Freedom of Speech needs protecting by a lawsuit brought by Juan Williams against NPR for money damages.
Lawsuits for money damages are about getting money.
Juan Williams has ample outlets through which his ideas and opinions can play their due part in the public discourse. Indeed, he’s being paid more money by Fox, and getting a bigger audience.
As for your imputing a racist motivation to me: Come to Houston, and come see me in person, and we’ll discuss that until one of us is in jail and the other in the hospital.
Further musing, if I may:
I doubt there is a very good factual basis to claim that Williams’ firing was the result of illegal discrimination against him on the basis of his race or age. One can make an argument that his race was a contributing factor in how he came to annoy the stridently politically correct at NPR; lots on the left have called Williams Fox’ “house Negro” and “Uncle Tom” and even worse. But I really doubt that his race was a substantial and direct part of the motivation behind his firing.
Whether he has a common-law claim for breach of contract very much depends on exactly what’s written in the contract. For instance, cfbleachers’ waiver argument (which resembles one also made by Megyn Kelly tonight on O’Reilly’s show) is appealing, but whether a court would find NPR to have waived its rights to enforce a particular contract provision can be affected quite dramatically by language in the contract. It would very much surprise me, for example, if, tucked away down in the “boilerplate” near the end of the contract, there were not a sentence something like this: “Employer’s failure on any one or more occasions to insist upon complete compliance by Employee with all of Employee’s contractual commitments in this Agreement shall not be deemed to imply any waiver of Employer’s continuing rights; moreover, Employee stipulates that any reliance by him on any alleged non-action or waiver by Employer of any express obligation of Employee would be unreasonable as a matter of law, such that Employer may not be equitably estopped by any incident of non-enforcement.”
That’s the kind of boilerplate that sophisticated employers with good lawyers build into their contracts. And it’s the kind of term that an employee has little leverage to object to. I’d be shocked and surprised if NPR doesn’t have a continuing pro bono relationship with some tony D.C. law firm to handle its employment law matters.
Final point: It’s entirely possible to structure contracts in ways that permit employers to fire employees for reasons that seem to the public to be unjustified or outrageous. Employers can be, and oh-so-frequently are, irrational and unfair and hypocritical and untruthful about their firings, without that necessarily giving anyone a guaranteed win in a lawsuit. Employers who have most or all of the bargaining power will generally try to have their lawyers preserve as much subjective discretion as possible, precisely so they can get away with firing people and not being effectively second-guessed. The bottom line is that before I’d make any predictions about the likelihood of Williams being able to win, I’d want to study his specific employment contract in detail — and so would any other lawyer.
WHY did he do it ?
He’s a pro, associated with NPR for some time. He MUST have known, or have guessed, the response to his comment. Could it have been a get out before the stampede starts.
When others see that the Tea Partiers and their supporters might get their act together and begin asserting their committment to Constitutional Government.
Taking a page from this administation’s book by quickly AND resolutely acting to repeal the most egregious laws / bills AND executive orders enacted by this sitting Congress,and CEO.
STOP this leftist takeover of the nation. What should the executives and pundits from NPR and NPB do ,if America willing,they’re made redundant, and have to get a real job?
Juan should sue and make one of the terms of settlement to have NPR’s taxpayer funded subsidies permanently defunded. Hit em where it hurts. Of course, NPR could always take to the airwaves as a privately funded left wing talk show. They could enlist the brain trust at Air America to help them ‘succeed’.
I don’t see a First Amendment or civil rights violation claim and I also don’t see damages here even if those claims were valid. BUT I heard the NPR CEO saying that Juan had engaged in past “ethics violations” and if I heard her correctly she didn’t say it was a breach of NPR ethics codes – rather, she accused him of being UNETHICAL. I’ve been a lawyer for 25 years – this would send me into a lather were the accusation made about me (in fact one lawyer made the accusation as rhetoric and I said that she had essentially defamed me but that I wasn’t damaged because no reasonable person could make the inferences she was making and therefore they’d think she was nuts and I wouldn’t be harmed – this was a contentions discussion but kind of fun). All joking aside about whether a journalist can or can’t be ethical, I thought she defamed him when she said this and I thought this would be legitimate grounds for an action even by a public figure – especially since the CEO was at the time making jokes about his psychiatrist/publicist, etc.
It would be irrelevant whether he won or lost. He’d be able to show NPR for the hypocritical organization it is.
Whether someone is “ethical” is a matter of opinion. Statements of opinion, in most states, can’t be a basis for libel or defamation.
EV’s opinion is very narrow in that it doesn’t address the equity issue: has NPR applied the same “standards” to its other employees?
Full discovery would be entertaining and instructive, with voices like Nina Tottenburg on the loose for the last 20 years.
There is no general duty for an employer to be “fair,” nor a legal requirement that employers treat different employees equally.
Said another way: Even if Williams were to allege and prove in court that NPR was unfair to him and that it judged him by different standards than it used for other employees, that still doesn’t state a legal claim on which a court could grant relief. Such a lawsuit would be dismissed in a matter of days, without any pretrial discovery being permitted, and possibly with court costs and attorneys’ fees being awarded to NPR.
Courts aren’t supposed to be parents. They aren’t supposed to settle all disputes and right all wrongs. Only liberals believe that courts can or should do that, and liberals are wrong.
Some advocacy group might bring suit on his behalf, but I wonder how he’s been damaged. It seems to me that he’s finally unbound and free to say what he really thinks. I hope that Fox doesn’t expect him to represent liberals. He should feel free to speak his mind. I like him a lot more when I can tell he’s being candid and not advocating for liberals.
I would think that a “wrongful termination” suit might be more appropriate and more likely to be successful. If Juan could show that his actions were not unique to him and that many other on-air talent had routinely done as much or worse than Juan, then he might be able to show that his firing was due more to his FOX connections than his actual on-air comments. In any case, such a suit could be quite amusing.
Whether he meant to or not, Juan Williams is defying the Nation of Islam (NOI) propaganda that proclaims that Islam is good for black Americans. Whether he realizes it or not, in his own words, Juan Williams is confronting Christian African American fears about Muslims politically and religiously taking over the African American community in the USA. Juan Williams is the first African American to publicly voice his fears about the presence of Islamic Fundamentalism and its massive media driven propaganda industry in America directed at the Black citizen. Juan Williams should sue the NPR, and use a jury trial.
freedom of speech… on an opinion… left wing if they dont like what you feel or say they turn on you in a heartbeat… badmouth any conservative view…. i feel horribe for juan.. he was fair in any debate he ever had even on fox… shame on npr… yes come after me.. i fly frequenly… dont tell me that most dont let 911 cross their mind when boarding a plane… the people on these flights are the ones in the recent past who noticed bahavior that could of led to a tragedy… his comment was not to degrade them.. but keep in mind not all muslims are terrorist… but most terrorist are muslims.. case closed.. Juan sue the pants off them for the comment on his mental state.. slander.. get em… and stand for what is right….
Everyone seems to be looking at this in terms of a lawsuit for either unlawful firing or abridgment of first amendment rights but has concluded that neither would be successful. Williams could file a suit for libel, NPR’s CEO having accused him, on air, of being insane.He could possibly win a judgment on this cause of action – though of only $1, since getting a better, higher-paying job and becoming famous as a result doesn’t constitute much in the way of monetary damages.
People all over the Unites States should stop sending their donations to their local NPR radio stations as a protest against the unfair firing of Juan Williams. Juan Williams nearly always presents the liberal side of any discussion. It the lady who fired Juan Williams had to do it because she is being controlled by George Soros, She should have refused to fire Juan Williams, even if it meant she lost her own job. NPR should drop all pretenses of being fair and balanced.
YES, Juan Williams should sue BUT it should be a Class-Action Suit.
It should include all those TV and Radio employees who were fired by TV & Radio companies for years – who received government money (which is WHY they were fired – for saying the “wrong” thing-those companies were called with a government complaint – and the news reporter was fired – and the news station KEPT its government funding). This has been happening for years, therefore “Class-Action” is needed and about time too.
Also those who “edited” interviews i.e. Katie Couric who “edited” Sarah Palin 2008 election interview, and the agreement was that Sarah Palin was to see/approve (accept/reject) the interview that was to air, but was NOT given that agreed upon Terms & Conditions of Agreement”. I have never watched KC since.
Should be LAW: no government funding to News Media. Call it the Juan Williams Law.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press must prevail.