No winners in anchor discrimination lawsuit

What will viewers' verdict be?

A former TV news anchor lost her age and gender discrimination lawsuit against Des Moines television station WHO-TV this week. Following an eight-day trial, a jury found that WHO did not discriminate against Sonya Heitshusen when it failed to renew her contract in 2020. The station defended itself by saying the decision was part of expense reductions dictated by new owners.

Sonya Heitshusen (from Facebook)

I can see both sides of this dispute.

From Heitshusen’s perspective, she had spent 17 years at the station as a reporter and anchor. She brought experience and contacts to the newsroom. Her lawsuit alleged that when she reached her 50s, she was “thrown out to pasture” because she was no longer deemed attractive enough on camera and that managers wanted the station to look younger and hipper. She claimed male anchors were allowed to turn gray and age on camera, but women were not. She was offered an off-camera job for less money, but she turned it down and filed a discrimination lawsuit.

Chasing younger demos?

She cited a station document prior to her departure that touted WHO’s “hip young relatable talent.”

There’s no question that the TV news industry chases younger demographics because that’s what advertisers say they want. Most ad buys in the Des Moines market are based on one demographic – 25-54. Even though most people who watch local news are 55 or older, advertisers want to reach customers when they’re young and forming buying habits that might last a lifetime. The thinking goes that once you become, for example, a Verizon customer you might stay a customer for life.

Most TV news stations conduct research every few years to determine what viewers like and don’t like about the newscasts. What types of stories are they interested in? Do viewers prefer longer or shorter stories? And that research includes how viewers judge on-air talent. Does a particular anchor appeal to a younger viewer or an older audience? Who is a budding star? Who has reached their peak and is trending down?

That research can factor into personnel decisions, but it should not be the only factor in deciding who stays and who goes during a staff reduction.

Managers need to hit a number

From WHO’s perspective, new owners, Nexstar Media, demanded expense cuts. That can put local managers in a difficult bind. They’re tasked with hitting a certain dollar amount and that almost always means staff reductions because that’s the most expensive part of any newsroom.

Anchors make significantly more money than reporters, photographers and producers – so managers can hit the money goal a lot faster by cutting an anchor and saving two or three other jobs. Anchors who’ve been around for years make the most money and in an era of cutbacks, that can put a target on their backs.

According to the Des Moines Register, station owner Nexstar’s attorney told the jury Heitshusen was one of eight employees laid off. He said she did not anchor the main 6pm and 10pm newscasts and was considered an extra anchor. The attorney said WHO’s General Manager “selected Ms. Heitshusen for the reduction because she made a lot of money, $120,000, and her role was redundant. By making that selection, he was able to keep several other employees.”

What I don’t know is why WHO didn’t negotiate a separation agreement with Heitshusen that would have paid her a sum of money to leave the station while agreeing not to sue. It makes sound legal and business sense when dealing with a high profile employee, particularly a female older than 40, which puts her in two protected classes. Yes, it costs money but it’s money well spent to avoid what I’m sure was a much more expensive defense of this discrimination lawsuit. It’s the cost of doing business.

No winners

Having been both an anchor and a news manager in my career, I feel badly for both sides in this dispute. Higher-ups often force local managers to make difficult decisions they would rather not. Anchors who give many years of loyal service are suddenly cast aside at a time in life when it’s hard to find another job.

Though one side “won” in court, there aren’t really any winners. Heitshusen lost a career she loved. The station gets a big legal bill and a public relations black eye for looking uncaring about a longtime anchor. Everybody is mad at each other, sad and exhausted.

I had a boss who used to say, “This can be a real sh*t business sometimes.” LOTS of businesses fit that description these days but in the world of TV news, everything you do is in the public eye. Jurors have spoken but viewers will come to their own verdict about who to trust in this ugly dispute.

---

I’m proud to be part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. Our founder, Julie Gammack, puts out a weekly roundup of all the latest columns each Sunday morning. Click here to read the most recent roundup.