Bradford Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc., et al
In the Court of Appeals of the State of California
Sixth Appellate District H030607
Cite as 2008 SOS 1437

Former KNTV’s anchor Brandon Hicks discriminatory claim was strike down by the court as baseless

Bradford Hicks, a White man, was the 5:00 p.m. weeknight news anchor for KNTV Television, Inc. (KNTV).

When Hicks’s contract expired in 2003, KNTV chose not to negotiate a new contract with him.

Earlier, NBC purchased KNTV on May 1, 2002. NBC’s purchase of KNTV led to many changes in top management.

The changes also reflect the line of KNTV’s news anchors. Some of the anchors were retained and some were reassigned. Some anchors were not retained including Hicks.

Hicks was not retained because his performance abilities were “not consistent with KNTV’s expectations for a major network evening news anchor in the fifth-ranked market of the nation.

Several months later the station selected an African-American man to fill the position plaintiff had vacated.

Hicks sued KNTV and National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC). In his complaint he alleged the following causes of action:

• For racial discrimination under Government Code section 12940,


• For wrongful termination under Government Code sections 12940 and 42 United States Code section 1981, and


• For age discrimination, which were eventually abandoned by Hicks.

KNTV and National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC moved for summary judgment, setting forth evidence to show that they had chosen not to retain Hicks because the newly hired vice president of news was dissatisfied with Hicks’s performance on the air.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and found that the complaint contains no triable issue of fact that could be ventilated upon.

Hicks filed a timely appeal in the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District.

In affirming the trial courts ruling, the appellate court held that the Television station was entitled to summary judgment in this suit filed by a Caucasian former television anchor based on the following reasons:

• where the defendants (television station) provided evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason;


• where plaintiff could not show evidence of unlawful discrimination because subjective criteria upon which employer based decision did not demonstrate a pretext,


• where plaintiff could not show pattern of discriminatory hiring or evidence of pressure to hire an African American, and


• Where plaintiff could not show that station's asserted reasons were false.

Further, the court added that the accumulation of evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue where defendant produced evidence of a legitimate reason for refusing to negotiate a new contract with plaintiff and plaintiff's evidence did not raise a reasonable inference the station's nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext.

In full, trial court’s ruling affirmed.