COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

FLORA POSTERARO,
PHRC Case No. 201703188
Complainant,
EEOC Case No.
v.

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. and

ROBERT BEE
Respondents.

COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction is pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 43 P.S.

§ 951 et seq.

PARTIES

2. The Complainant herein is:

Flora Posteraro
3704 Leyland Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

3. The Respondents are:

Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.

545 E. John Carpenter Freeway
Suite 700
Irving, TX 75062

Robert Bee
3235 Hoffman Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

1
 FACTS

4. Complainant Flora Posteraro (“Posteraro”) is an adult individual and an

“employee” as defined under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S.

§ 951 et seq. and Title VII.

5. Respondent Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

(the “Company”) is an entity engaged in an industry affecting commerce having four or

more employees within the Commonwealth and is an “employer” as defined under the

PHRA and Title VII.

6. Respondent Robert Bee (“Bee”) is an adult individual who was Posteraro’s

supervisor during the relevant time period, and the General Manager of ABC27, the

Company’s television station where Posteraro was employed as a news anchor (the

“Station”).

7. Posteraro is an experienced news broadcaster. Her first broadcasting job

out of college was as a weekend anchor/reporter at a station in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

A few months later, she was promoted to the weekday anchor role at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

Following Clarksburg, Posteraro also served as the weekday anchor at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

in Johnstown and then Wilkes-Barre. In 1990, she began working as a reporter at WPVI

in Philadelphia, then the fourth largest market in the country. In 1995, Posteraro was

promoted to weekend anchor with reporting responsibilities during the week.

8. Posteraro joined the Station on August 11, 1997 as a TV Anchor/Reporter.

9. From August 11, 1997 until March 12, 2018, when her employment was

terminated, or in the alternative, when she was constructively discharged, Posteraro was

co-anchor of the Station’s “News at Five” and “News at Noon.”

2
 10. Her normal shift was Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and her

duties included, but were not limited to, anchoring the noon and 5 p.m. newscasts,

reporting on special segments (including Focus on Family and Healthy High 5), writing

stories, editing, proofing other reporters’ scripts, attending promotional events for the

Station, public appearances, engaging on social media, and mentoring younger

employees.

11. Over her more than 20-year tenure with the Station, Posteraro won many

awards, including Emmys for anchoring and reporting, Associated Press awards for

reporting, and numerous awards in recognition for her work with the community and

non-profits.

12. In January 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of the Station. At

that time, the Company engaged Bee as the new General Manager.

13. Almost immediately, Bee showed his penchant for partiality by

demanding that the female on-air talent discard their fashionable sleeveless dresses as “no

one wants to look at flabby arms,” and by using the Station’s funds to purchase new ties

for the male reporters and anchors, while the female anchors and reporters were required

to purchase their new wardrobe without reimbursement. In response, Posteraro

respectfully challenged Bee’s wardrobe requirements and treatment of female employees.

14. In June 2017, Bee decided that female anchors who worked evening shifts

would fill in for the morning anchors. While it was not unusual for anchors to substitute

for each other as needed, it was unusual that this policy applied only to the female

anchors, and not the male anchors. As a result, female anchors filling in for the morning

anchors would be required to work a split shift from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. and, at a minimum

3
from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. It was not until Posteraro objected that this change unfairly

burdened and discriminated against the female anchors that Bee added a male anchor to

the substitute rotation. After Bee reluctantly added a male anchor to the rotation of filling

in, Bee praised and thanked that male anchor publicly for his sacrifice while ignoring the

burden he had placed on the female anchors who already had been filling in.

15. On July 15, 2017, the Station’s News Director departed. At that time,

upon information and belief, Station management – including Bee – had only discussed

the options of keeping Amanda St. Hilaire in the weekend anchor role and moving the 11

p.m. weekday male anchor and reporter Mike Parker to a weekend anchor position. At

that time, upon information and belief, there was no discussion or consideration given to

moving Posteraro to the weekend anchor position.

16. In the news broadcast business, weekend anchoring is considered less

desirable than weekday anchoring, as it involves fewer on air appearances coupled with

fewer viewers, among other matters.

17. By August 2017, Bee had publicly referred to another female anchor as a

“mean bitch,” told the at-the-time news director that a female reporter looked like a “fat

pig” on air, made uncomfortable racial and sexual comments about the morning anchors,

had described women who did not follow his restrictive dress code as “street walkers,”

and said those who defied his dress code “would pay” for challenging him. Upon

information and belief, Bee had shown a similar pattern of behavior at the Nexstar-owned

station in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre market, where he worked as General Manager

before his promotion to the Station.

4
 18. Posteraro repeatedly and respectfully stood up to Bee and opposed his

near daily disrespectful and disparaging treatment of women. When another female

anchor, Amanda St. Hilaire, began speaking up to Bee and refusing to allow his behavior

to continue unchallenged, Bee asked St. Hilaire if Posteraro “put her up to it.”

19. In or around August 3, 2017, Posteraro participated in what was supposed

to be an anonymous complaint to human resources about Bee’s discrimination against

women and the hostile work environment said discrimination created.

20. The new News Director commenced work around August 8, 2017.

21. The Human Resources investigation commenced, and Posteraro was

interviewed in or around August 17, 2018 or August 18, 2018.

22. Upon information and belief, Bee knew that Posteraro participated in the

anonymous complaint and the investigation.

23. In a conversation with Posteraro in September 2017, the News Director

stated that he was not aware of any anchor changes and there were no plans for anchor

changes in the works.

24. In October 2017, the Station hosted three focus groups.

25. Upon information and belief, the Station conducted its own focus groups,

rather than following the industry standard of hiring an independent research firm.

Further, it is believed and therefore averred that the focus group clips were selectively

picked to ensure a predetermined outcome. Further, the focus groups did not utilize clips

of all of the anchors. The clips did not include the weekend anchors, or the morning

anchors. Rather, the focus groups saw a clip of a newscast with the 6 p.m. anchor team,

and individual clips of Posteraro, her co-anchor, and Mike Parker.

5
 26. In November 2017, Posteraro approached the News Director about the

status of her contract renegotiation, as her contract was set to expire on December 24,

2017.

27. The News Director confirmed that her contract would be renewed. He

advised that he would reach out to Bee and get back to Posteraro. When Posteraro

followed up several times over the following weeks, the News Director informed her that

he was waiting to hear from Bee. The News Director eventually advised Posteraro that

the contract was tied up with the Station’s budget, which was not finalized, and that the

Station would be in touch after the holidays to begin negotiations. He further indicated

that he preferred “not to do business this way” but that his “hands were tied.”

28. In prior years, Posteraro’s contracts were negotiated months in advance of

the expiration and they had never been held up with the excuse that they were tied to a

budget.

29. Despite the absence of the contract, Posteraro continued to anchor the

weekday noon and 5 p.m. broadcasts.

30. On January 31, 2018, the News Director informed Posteraro that although

the Station was offering her a two-year contract at the same rate of pay, starting in March

(i.e. after the February ratings period which determines the amount the Station charges

advertisers for commercials) she would no longer be anchoring the noon or 5 p.m.

weekday newscasts, but rather would be a Weekend Anchor, with reporting duties three

days per week, with fill in anchoring duty as needed.

31. When pressed, the News Director admitted to Posteraro that the change in

duties was a “demotion.”

6
 32. Upon information and belief, the Station and Bee had no plan to move

Posteraro to the Weekend Anchor position until after Posteraro challenged Bee’s

discriminatory behavior and treatment of female employees. The decision to move

Posteraro was made after and because of Posteraro’s complaints.

33. In a February 2, 2018 meeting between Posteraro and Bee, Bee agreed that

Posteraro’s performance was exceptional. Posteraro questioned whether she was being

discriminated against. In that meeting, and on several prior occasions in private and in

public, Bee called Posteraro the “gold standard” of anchoring.

34. On February 5, 2018, Posteraro filed a complaint with Human Resources

claiming that the demotion was retaliation for her objection to Bee’s treatment of female

employees.

35. After approximately three weeks, and an incomplete investigation, the

Company concluded that there was no retaliation. Among other matters, the Company

failed to speak with individuals who had evidence supporting Posteraro’s claims.

36. On February 26, 2018 – after she expressed concerns about retaliation for

reporting discriminatory conduct – Posteraro was informed that her demotion would not

be to daytime reporting, as she was initially informed, but rather night side reporting,

requiring a 3 p.m. to midnight shift, similar to what an inexperienced reporter would be

assigned.

37. Posteraro informed the Station that she was not quitting, and that she was

willing to continue working in her current role as noon and 5 p.m. anchor, and that she

believed the offered demotion (including the night side assignment) was retaliation.

7
 38. On Monday March 12, 2018 the Station advised she no longer worked for

the Company and that it considered her to have resigned.

39. Posteraro did not resign; rather she was terminated, or in the alternative,

constructively discharged.

40. The reason for the termination is retaliation in violation of the

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. (“PHRA”).

41. Posteraro received no fewer than four different and conflicting

explanations for her demotion.

42. The first explanation (from the News Director and Bee) provided in or

around January 31, 2018 and February 2, 2018 was that the move had nothing to do with

her performance (which was acknowledged to be exceptional), and that the Station

wanted Posteraro in the weekend anchor position to “win” the weekends.

43. The next explanation came on February 21, 2018, from a corporate

manager. She claimed that the Station was moving Posteraro to a weekend anchor

position because there were too many anchors during the week and ratings were eroding.

The same manager told Posteraro that the decision to move her was made before the

October focus groups. She further stated that the focus groups merely “reaffirmed” their

decision

44. The third explanation on February 23, 2018 came from corporate human

resources representative, who claimed that the decision was made based on a ten-minute

meeting in April 2017 between a corporate representative, Posteraro and her co-anchor

shortly before a broadcast. The HR representative claimed that the representative had, on

this one, off-air meeting, observed no chemistry and no rapport between Posteraro and

8
her co-anchor, and that the focus group re-affirmed the observations. The focus group

comments provided to Posteraro did not, in fact address such alleged observations.

Moreover, out of the 60 focus group participants, the Station identified only six

“negative” comments regarding Posteraro.

45. The fourth reason given to Posteraro on February 26, 2018 by a corporate

manager was that the Company managers “knew they had to move one weekday anchor

to the weekends,” but the focus groups changed that decision and led them to believe they

“had to move two weekday anchors to the weekend.” This explanation contradicts the

Company’s prior statements that the focus groups “reaffirmed” the decision it had already

made.

46. The inconsistent and changing explanations belie that the real reason for

the demotion was in retaliation for Posteraro’s complaints about Bee’s treatment of

women.

47. Posteraro has satisfied any and all conditions precedent to her right to

bring this charge under the PHRA.

Count 1
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. the Company)

48. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth herein at length.

49. During the course of her employment, Posteraro was a member of a

protected class under the PHRA, as she is a female.

50. The Company discriminated against Posteraro by creating and/or

permitting a hostile work environment which discriminated against Posteraro and other

9
female employees with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment

based on her protected class.

51. The discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms

and conditions of her employment, as described more fully above. Male co-workers were

not subject to this discrimination.

52. As set forth more fully above, this conduct constitutes unlawful

discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,

43 P.S. § 951 et seq.

53. Posteraro has suffered damages due to the Company’s unlawful

discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all

appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or

reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and

interest.

Count 2
Retaliation Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. the Company)

54. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth herein at length.

55. During the course of her employment, Posteraro was a member of a

protected class under the PHRA, as she is a female.

56. Posteraro complained to the Company regarding the hostile work

environment which she experienced and witnessed.

10
 57. After Posteraro complained of the discriminatory working conditions, the

Company retaliated against her by demoting her and terminating her employment where

similarly situated employees would not have been terminated.

58. The Company demoted Posteraro and terminated her employment in

retaliation for her complaints.

59. Posteraro’s demotion and ultimate termination constitutes unlawful

retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.

60. Posteraro has suffered damages due to the Company’s unlawful

retaliation.

WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all

appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or

reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and

interest.

Count 3
Discrimination and Retaliation Under the PHRA
(Complainant v. Bee)

61. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if stated at length herein.

62. At all relevant times, Bee contributed directly to the hostile work

environment, discrimination and retaliation directed toward Posteraro.

63. Bee aided and abetted in the hostile work environment, discrimination and

retaliation directed toward Posteraro.

64. Upon information and belief, Bee had decision-making power regarding

Posteraro’s demotion and termination.

65. Bee’s conduct constitutes a violation of 43 P.S. § 955(e).

11
 66. Posteraro has suffered damages due to Bee’s unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that Bee be required to provide all

appropriate remedies under § 9 of the PHRA, including back pay, front pay and/or

reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and

interest.

Count 4
Discrimination Under Title VII
(Complainant v. Company)

67. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if stated at length herein.

68. Posteraro is a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000et seq. (“Title VII”), as she is a

female.

69. The Company discriminated against Posteraro by creating and/or

permitting a hostile work environment which discriminated against Posteraro and other

female employees with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment

based on her protected class.

70. The discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms

and conditions of her employment, as described more fully above. Male co-workers were

not subject to this discrimination.

71. As set forth more fully above, this conduct constitutes unlawful

discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII.

72. Posteraro has suffered damages due to Bee’s unlawful conduct.

12
 WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all

appropriate remedies under Title VII, including back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement,

compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.

Count 5
Retaliation Under Title VII
(Complainant v. Company)

73. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if stated at length herein.

74. Posteraro is a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”), as she is a

female.

75. Posteraro complained to the Company regarding the hostile work

environment, harassment and discrimination she experienced and witnessed.

76. After Posteraro complained of the discriminatory working conditions, the

Company retaliated against her by demoting her and terminating her employment where

similarly situated employees would not have been terminated.

77. The Company demoted Posteraro and terminated her employment in

retaliation for her complaints.

78. Posteraro’s demotion and ultimate termination constitutes unlawful

retaliation in violation of Title VII.

79. Posteraro has suffered damages due to the Company’s unlawful

retaliation.

13
 WHEREFORE, Flora Posteraro prays that the Company be required to provide all

appropriate remedies under Title VII, including back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement,

compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.

DUAL FILING

This charge has been dual filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission asserting all claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.

CURLEY & ROTHMAN, LLC

Date: By:________________________
Charles V. Curley
1100 E. Hector Street
Suite 425
Conshohocken PA 19428
610 834 8819
610 834 8813 (fax)
Attorneys for Complainant

14
 VERIFICATION

I hereby verify that the statements contained in this Amended Complaint are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false

statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. § 4904, relating to

unsworn falsification to authorities.

_____________________________
Flora Posteraro

Date:______________

15