Watchdog Wrongful Termination Suit Against Courant, Tribune, resurrected

As promised, my wrongful termination suit against The Courant and Tribune companies has been resurrected by my attorney, Joseph Garrison of New Haven.

Garrison today filed an amended complaint in Hartford Superior Court, focusing on the expressed promises made to me by Courant executives that advertising pressure would not adversely impact my job as the newspaper’s first investigative consumer columnist.

At the same time, Garrison filed a notice that he would appeal Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall Berger’s ruling from last month dismissing my lawsuit, agreeing with the newspaper that I did not have a legal basis to bring the suit.

The amended lawsuit is now a more of a plain vanilla wrongful discharge case, which will be much more difficult for The Courant and The Tribune Co. to challenge successfully prior to trial.

That means that there is now a high likelihood that the top executives at The Courant and Fox 61 will be forced to testify under oath about their promises, ethics, and the impact advertisers have on their news decisions.

I expect the newspaper to again file a motion to strike – dismiss – the amended complaint.

But since the amended suit does not seek to expand any employee rights, fighting it will be an uphill battle. A judge must assume that all facts I or any plaintiff brings are true and that they can be proven. The judge’s ruling must solely focus on the law, whether it permits recourse against the employer based on the allegations.

In my case, even though I was an at will employee for 40 years – which means I could be fired for almost any reason – my lawyer and I maintain that I could not be fired as the result of push-back from advertisers since I was given specific promises of protection from them.

My amended complaint (printed in whole below) provides these specific allegations:

When Cliff Teutsch was promoted from managing editor to executive editor in the fall of 2006, he fired me as the business editor.

I had served as business editor for 12 years – longer than any previous editor – and had not been given any written or verbal warnings. In the 40 years at The Courant I had all outstanding or above average annual reviews, none that contained substantial criticism. Teutsch also said he would cut my salary by about 20 percent.

I hired Garrison and challenged the dismissal on the grounds of age discrimination.

At the result, my pay was kept in tact and I was offered the position of investigative consumer columnist, a post that had never before been created by The Courant.

Before accepting that job and dropping my potential age discrimination suit, I requested assurances from Teutsch and from the publisher that I would be protected from complaints from advertisers- the likely subjects of many of my columns.

I was given such assurances and I waived my age discrimination claim.

In 2009 when Richard Graziano became publisher and head of both Fox 61 and The Courant, Graziano also specifically reassured me that he would stand up to advertisers who complained about my work.

However, after two advertisers complained to Graziano and I had prepared a column about one of the largest advertisers – Sleepy’s – my position was eliminated and I was fired as of Aug. 14, 2009. My column – which disclosed that the Attorney General was investigating Sleepy’s on complaints that it had sold used mattresses as new – including one with bedbugs – was killed without explanation.

I refused a severance offer, which included a non-disparagement clause, and filed the original lawsuit in September, 2009.

AMENDED LAWSUIT Filed today electronically

FIRST COUNT (Wrongful Discharge)

The plaintiff, George Gombossy (hereafter “Gombossy”), is a citizen of Massachusetts and a resident of East Longmeadow, Massachusetts.

2. Defendant The Hartford Courant Company (hereafter “Courant”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Tribune Co., which acquired the Courant in 2000. The Courant has been and remains the largest morning newspaper in the state of Connecticut

3. Prior to his termination effective August 14, 2009, Gombossy had worked in various capacities for more than 40 years for the Courant.

4. In May, 2002 the Courant published its “News Mission,” in which it in part stated: “The Hartford Courant seeks to provide the news Connecticut needs, reported faithfully and fully, with respect for all and favor to none…. To accomplish this mission, we set for ourselves the following goals: …To raise issues aggressively and constructively, and to expose inefficiency, injustice and corruption in matters of public interest. To extend the circle of public debate as widely as possible, by reflecting the diversity of Connecticut’s people and seeking out

voices that often are ignored. To guard against arrogance and complacency, and to be open to criticism, remembering our responsibility as the State’s largest newspaper…. We believe that by striving toward these goals with fairness, honesty and compassion, we will benefit the public life of the State and enrich the private lives of our readers.”

5. In 2006, Gombossy, as one of the most veteran reporters and editors at the Courant, was selected to launch a weekly consumer Watchdog column. One goal of this column was to be an effective voice of redress for the frustrated and powerless.

6. The intent of the Watchdog column was for Gombossy to open a dialogue with readers. He would air their complaints, seek to mediate or redress their problems and present information that readers might find useful and relevant in their daily lives, as consumers, householders and citizens. All of this was consistent with the Courant’s News Mission.

7. By January 2008, the column had surpassed all expectations. It had become one of the most widely read features in the Courant, had made an impact at the state government level and in corporate headquarters in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country. The Courant devoted significant resources to marketing Gombossy as the Watchdog.

8. According to Gombossy’s performance review in January, 2008 much of the credit for the column’s success was due to Gombossy. His performance rating for the year 2007, overall, was Exceptional.

9. In June, 2009 Gombossy received his performance review for the period from January 6, 2008 to January 4, 2009. For 2008, Gombossy’s overall performance exceeded expectations. His attitude was rated as enthusiastic and always positive – “George has made a name for himself — and this company.”

10. In March, 2009, defendant Tribune Co. announced that it would merge the newspaper operations of the Courant with two television stations. It named Richard Graziano, then Senior Vice President/General Manager of the two television stations, to be Publisher of the Courant. In or about late April, Tribune Co. appointed Jeff Levine, an executive with a marketing background, as the Courant’s new senior vice president/director of content.

11. Before Levine began his Courant job, Gombossy had written a Watchdog column disclosing numerous serious complaints from Aeillo Plumbing’s customers and that Aeillo Plumbing was under state investigation for allegedly illegal activities.

12. Shortly after Mr. Levine joined the Courant, Levine called Gombossy into a meeting. Levine said he had received a complaint from Aeillo Plumbing, that Aeillo was upset that Gombossy was picking on them, and that Aeillo was a major advertiser (initially claiming that Aeillo was or would be spending $500,000 a year) and the newspaper could not afford to have Aeillo angry at it. He told Gombossy that he should go to Aeillo’s offices and “be nice” to them.

13. Gombossy refused, stating that such an act would be unethical and he would not do it. He told Levine that Levine would have to fire him before he would comply with that request.

14. On July 2, Gombossy published, in his Watchdog blog, a customer complaint made against a Courant advertiser, Price Chopper. The customer’s complaint was posted, at 10:26 AM, exactly as it was received, with the headline: “Price Chopper complaint: customer claims crab advertisement false.” At 2:28 PM on the same day, Gombossy posted Price Chopper’s response to the consumer’s complaint, which it said provided “verifiable answers to your questions.”

15. Levine was in Florida on July 2, but on July 9, he e-mailed the Assistant Managing Editor and the Managing Editor, stating in part: “Did he give us a heads up before writing about a major client?”

16. Levine later claimed, to Gombossy, that Price Chopper canceled a $100,000 advertising campaign that they were intending to run in the Courant.

17. Until late July, Gombossy published his blog without specific rules from higher management. Gombossy had been highly praised for both his Watchdog column and his blog, no restrictions had been set and he had never been told to publish his blog in any different manner.

18. At a meeting held on July 22, however, Levine told Gombossy that he (Levine) will decide whether to continue to run the column and the blog, and who will write them. He said that Gombossy could continue but he did not want Gombossy to annoy any advertisers, and that Gombossy was required to alert Levine if he planned to write any columns that might negatively reflect on an important advertiser. Gombossy requested and received a list of major advertisers.

19. Upon information and belief, other reporters had also been warned about writing articles critical about advertisers.

20. Gombossy was in the process of writing an article about a well-known mattress company, Sleepy’s, because Gombossy learned that the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office was investigating complaints from customers of Sleepy’s that it was selling used mattresses misrepresented as new ones. Gombossy told his editors that he intended to publish an article covering the subject, and he gave a draft of the article to them. Sleepy’s was on the list of advertisers.

21. The Sleepy’s article was scheduled to be published on August 2, but was held back without explanation.

22. On August 3, Gombossy was called into his supervisor’s office. He was told his position was being eliminated, that a new position was being created that would not include investigative reporting and that the salary for that position would be less than half of what Gombossy was presently earning. Gombossy was not asked to apply for the job nor was the job offered to him. He was directed to go immediately to the Human Resource Director’s office, where he was given two weeks’ continuation before having to leave the premises.

23. Gombossy’s last day with the Courant was August 14, 2009.

24. The Courant has provided different, shifting and false explanations for Gombossy’s termination, as follows:

Richard Graziano, the Publisher, stated that Gombossy was a “disgruntled employee;”

The Courant’s “official company statement” was that “Mr. Gombossy’s position was eliminated “and that although “he was made aware” of the new position he “did not express interest;”

The Managing Editor stated that Gombossy was offered an opportunity to apply but failed to do so;

The Courant instructed its telemarketers to tell readers who inquired about Gombossy to say he “resigned.”

25. The preponderance of the evidence, however, is that Gombossy was discharged on account of his exercise of speech on matters of public concern and/or his insistence on maintaining consumer trust in the Courant as a news organization.

26. Gombossy’s discharge violated Connecticut General Statutes section 31-51q.

27. As a result of his wrongful discharge, Gombossy will suffer past and future economic losses, including fringe and retirement benefits.

SECOND COUNT (Promissory Estoppel)

28. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are hereby realleged as paragraphs 1 through 24 in this Second Count.

29. When the defendant Hartford Courant published its News Mission in May, 2002, it expected all of its news staff, including Gombossy, to comply with that Mission, and with its goals. Failure to comply with the Mission could lead to termination of employment.

30. The Mission stated specifically: “The Hartford Courant seeks to provide the news Connecticut needs, reported faithfully and fully, with respect for all and favor to none.”

31. To accomplish its Mission, the Courant set goals which included: “To raise issues aggressively and constructively, and to expose inefficiency, injustice and corruption in matters of public interest;” “To extend the circle of public debate as widely as possible, by reflecting the diversity of Connecticut’s people and by seeking out voices that often are ignored;” and “To guard against arrogance and complacency, and to be open to criticism, remembering our responsibility as the state’s largest newspaper.”

32. The News Mission concluded by stating: “We believe that by striving toward these goals with fairness, honesty and compassion, we will benefit the public life of the state and enrich the private lives of our readers.”

33. Plaintiff Gombossy was familiar with the Courant’s News Mission and was promised and understood that he must conduct his professional career, specifically including his consumer Watchdog column, with the Courant in accordance with the goals set out in the Mission.

34. In September 2006, Cliff Teutsch was promoted from managing editor to

executive editor. He fired Gombossy – without any prior warning – as the business editor and directed that his pay be reduced by about 20 percent.

35. Gombossy contested the unwarranted demotion and salary reduction and notified

his editors that he had retained counsel to pursue an age discrimination complaint. He was shortly thereafter offered the investigative consumer columnist position and his salary was kept whole.

36. Gombossy knew that pressure from advertisers could limit his role as an investigative columnist. Gombossy therefore sought and was given a commitment by Mr. Teutsch that complaints and/or interference from advertisers would not impact his job. Teutsch also confirmed that the publisher had agreed to this job condition.

37. It was only after those assurances were given by Teutsch that Gombossy agreed to waive the claim of age discrimination in consideration for becoming the investigative consumer columnist.

38. During the same negotiations, Teutsch also informed Gombossy that he was expected to follow the Mission statement and led Gombossy to believe that if he failed to live up to those expectations he could be fired.

39. When Richard Graziano became publisher, Graziano also specifically reassured Gombossy that he would stand up to advertisers who complained about Gombossy’s work.

40. The Mission, to which Mr. Teutsch had referred, was also a clear and definite

promise from the Courant to its reporters that their careers would not be adversely affected by compliance with the goals stated in the Mission, but failure to follow those goals could and

likely would result in disciplinary action. The promises Gombossy received from Teutsch and Graziano, in connection with his column, reinforced the statements of the Mission.

41. The Courant reasonably should have expected its reporters, including Gombossy, to rely on promises from its executive editor and its publisher, as well as compliance with the Mission’s goals, as protection from adverse consequences or retaliation.

42. Gombossy did reasonably rely on the promises made to him as protection for him.

43. Gombossy’s employment with the Courant was terminated as a result of his continued consumer advocacy even when it involved major advertisers.

44. Enforcement of the Courant’s promises is necessary to prevent injustice.

45. Gombossy will suffer past and future economic losses, including fringe and retirement benefits.

WHEREFORE, Gombossy requests that this Court award the following damages:

1. All past and future economic and benefit losses;

2. Statutory interest;

3. Any other remedy that may appear to be just and proper.