Veteran CBS Anchor Sues Network for $5M, Alleging Discrimination in Pursuit of Diversity

[Social Media]

 

In a landmark legal battle that has ignited intense discussions on workplace diversity and discrimination, Emmy Award-winning CBS anchor Jeff Vaughn has filed a $5 million lawsuit against CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global. Vaughn, who dedicated eight years to a CBS-owned Los Angeles affiliate, claims that he was terminated due to a company policy that prioritizes diversity hires over white, heterosexual males. 

 

The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court on Monday, centers around Vaughn’s assertion that CBS’s aggressive pursuit of diversity led to his replacement by a younger, minority news anchor in 2022. Vaughn's complaint highlights CBS's goal to ensure that half of all writers be nonwhite by 2023 and an initiative requiring that half of all cast members on their reality shows be minorities. The complaint alleges, "CBS decided that there were too many white males at CBS, and it acted accordingly. It needed to solve its ‘white problem’ by firing successful white males." CBS has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

 

 

This legal action is not the first of its kind for CBS. In March, a similar case was brought forward by a white, heterosexual male freelance writer for CBS's "SEAL Team" series, who accused the network of "blatant" discrimination. Earlier this year, an investigation by The New York Post revealed that CBS News president Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews had been accused by staffers of promoting minorities while unfairly sidelining white journalists. This sparked an internal human relations probe in 2021. Sources claimed the probe, which was “cut short,” concluded that Ciprian-Matthews was merely a “bad manager” with limited resources.

 

 

According to Vaughn, he was informed by the general manager at CBS News Los Angeles that he would be replaced within six months, although no direct reason was provided for his removal. Vaughn, who has over 30 years of experience in broadcast journalism and has won four Emmys, noticed that he was gradually being excluded from several reporting and promotional events ahead of his firing. For instance, during CBS News’ 20th anniversary 9/11 special coverage, Vaughn, who had reported from Ground Zero in Manhattan, was conspicuously left out of the program.

 

Vaughn also alleges that he was excluded from CBS’s new promotional campaign for its evening shows in the fall of 2022, despite being the premier evening anchor. The promotional billboard featured all of Vaughn’s co-anchors, who were either racial or gender minorities, while Vaughn was the only anchor not included.

 

The alleged discrimination occurred at a time when CBS was pushing to increase diversity hiring. Under George Cheeks, who is now co-CEO of Paramount and CBS CEO, the network set a series of diversity goals, including staffing all writers’ rooms on its primetime series to be 40% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, or People of Color) for the 2021-22 season. Seventeen out of 21 shows met or exceeded that target. In 2022, Tiffany Smith-Anoa’i, executive vice president of Paramount’s entertainment diversity, equity, and inclusion department, announced that the company’s “culture of belonging has doubled female representation, tripled people of color representation and we’re only getting started.”

 

Vaughn claims that the diversity effort was “kicked into high gear” when CBS News and Stations president Wendy McMahon was hired in 2021. McMahon, who now holds the role of CBS News CEO, was publicly recognized for her work in making the station group more diverse, on both sides of the camera and in leadership positions. Vaughn alleges that McMahon replaced him with Chauncy Glover, a 37-year-old African-American anchor from ABC’s Houston bureau. "The truth is, CBS News, at the direction of McMahon, implemented an illegal hiring, promotion, or retention policy based on age, race, sexual orientation, and sex," Vaughn's lawsuit claims. 

 

On his last day, Vaughn was asked by his manager to publicly announce that it was his decision to leave, but he refused. After his last day on September 22, 2023, the news team issued a live statement implying that Vaughn had left of his own accord. The statement read: "Friday was Jeff Vaughn’s last newscast with KCAL news. Now, he didn’t want to make a big fuss about leaving, but we wanted you to know. He has been a vital part of the KCAL news team for 8 years, and we have taken great pride working with Jeff to share your stories."

 

As the lawsuit progresses, it is likely to spark further debate on the balance between diversity initiatives and allegations of reverse discrimination, potentially setting a significant precedent in employment and discrimination law. Vaughn’s case underscores the complex dynamics of implementing diversity policies in the workplace and raises critical questions about fairness and equality in employment practices.

 

Credit: NYP 2024-07-05

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[1duckyboy]

This is one story that won't be on CBS news.

[blazes]

Good.  I hope there are many many more lawsuits along these lines.

The whole concept of D.E.I. has led to the intense divisiveness that now bedevils so many countries in the Anglosphere.

[Hawaiian]

Time to boycott any company that advertises on CBS.

[brianthainess]

I knew of a housing association in the UK that was doing similar, housing people of color before white people that needed it more, just to keep up the color 'Diversity'.  

[brianthainess]

Token from Southpark. 

 

[WDSmart]

Although I am an extreme-left liberal and fervently support diversity, I do think that should not be done at the cost of discriminating against anyone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. I don't know if this was done in this case, but if it was, it's wrong and should be rectified the best way possible.

[Skipalongcassidy]

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Although I am an extreme-left liberal and fervently support diversity, I do think that should not be done at the cost of discriminating against anyone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. I don't know if this was done in this case, but if it was, it's wrong and should be rectified the best way possible.

Yes of course... diversity over meritocracy is your mantra until it is applied to you... then hear the uproar.

[pedro01]

52 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Although I am an extreme-left liberal and fervently support diversity, I do think that should not be done at the cost of discriminating against anyone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. I don't know if this was done in this case, but if it was, it's wrong and should be rectified the best way possible.

 

Yeah - swinging the pendulum in the other direction is still racism.

[WDSmart]

6 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

6 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Although I am an extreme-left liberal and fervently support diversity, I do think that should not be done at the cost of discriminating against anyone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. I don't know if this was done in this case, but if it was, it's wrong and should be rectified the best way possible.

Yes of course... diversity over meritocracy is your mantra until it is applied to you... then hear the uproar.

This wasn't applied to me, although I agree with you that when YOU are the one affected, the activities get personalized.

In this case, IF this man was LET GO AND THEN REPLACED by a person of a different race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., in order to diversify the employer's workplace, then that, IMO, is wrong. If, however, a person was HIRED over another person in order to enhance the diversity of the workplace, that, then, IMO, is okay.

[pedro01]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

This wasn't applied to me, although I agree with you that when YOU are the one affected, the activities get personalized.

In this case, IF this man was LET GO AND THEN REPLACED by a person of a different race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., in order to diversify the employer's workplace, then that, IMO, is wrong. If, however, a person was HIRED over another person in order to enhance the diversity of the workplace, that, then, IMO, is okay.

 

 

Neither are ok. 

[300sd]

The world seemed to work well when one hired on merit!

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

15 hours ago, WDSmart said:

  If, however, a person was HIRED over another person in order to enhance the diversity of the workplace, that, then, IMO, is okay.

That is precisely the problem... pretty soon the hiring becomes reliant on appearances of being diverse rather than qualified... pretty soon you have second rate service to your industry... a very good example is government workers... ever been to the DMV or any government office and tried to get good service?  NO... didn't think so... if you did it was a mistake made in their hiring practice and one of the qualified slipped through the diversity requirements.

So in your mind it is OK to discriminate as long as it is for the "right" reason... that's total hogwash.

Edited July 6 by Skipalongcassidy

[KhunLA]

On 7/5/2024 at 1:36 PM, Hawaiian said:

Time to boycott any company that advertises on CBS.

I wouldn't even know who advertises on CBS.  I only boycott products from the USA and Israel  ... so far 

 

... and the UK.  Had to add a 3rd, so I can call them the "Axis of Evil" 

 

On topic ... tough lawsuit to win, unless stated fired for diversity.  Going to be a hard one to prove, as many get replaced for younger, less paid employees.

Edited July 6 by KhunLA

[WDSmart]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

18 hours ago, WDSmart said:

  If, however, a person was HIRED over another person in order to enhance the diversity of the workplace, that, then, IMO, is okay.

That is precisely the problem... pretty soon the hiring becomes reliant on appearances of being diverse rather than qualified... pretty soon you have second rate service to your industry... a very good example is government workers... ever been to the DMV or any government office and tried to get good service?  NO... didn't think so... if you did it was a mistake made in their hiring practice and one of the qualified slipped through the diversity requirements.

So in your mind it is OK to discriminate as long as it is for the "right" reason... that's total hogwash.

I disagree because I value societal issues more than economic issues. In other words, I am a left-leaning liberal who favors socialism, and above and IMO, you are expressing the perspective of a right-leaning conservative who favors capitalism.

It's true that hiring the most qualified candidate will most likely provide better service (and more profit) for an organization, but hiring candidates that enhance the diversity of the workplace gives opportunities to those who have not had an equal chance to develop their skills because of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and that helps enhance the diversity of the society as a whole.

[Skipalongcassidy]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I disagree because I value societal issues more than economic issues. In other words, I am a left-leaning liberal who favors socialism, and above and IMO, you are expressing the perspective of a right-leaning conservative who favors capitalism.

It's true that hiring the most qualified candidate will most likely provide better service (and more profit) for an organization, but hiring candidates that enhance the diversity of the workplace gives opportunities to those who have not had an equal chance to develop their skills because of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and that helps enhance the diversity of the society as a whole.

BS... socialism fails repeatedly just for that reason... people do not want to have others put before them that are less qualified and productive... in the USA it is a falsehood to imply that there are those who no longer have all the tools needed to get ahead in society... the laggards now choose to be victims... why is diversity something that needs to be enhanced... what are the benefits... except to the lazy?

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

BS... socialism fails repeatedly just for that reason... people do not want to have others put before them that are less qualified and productive... in the USA it is a falsehood to imply that there are those who no longer have all the tools needed to get ahead in society... the laggards now choose to be victims... why is diversity something that needs to be enhanced... what are the benefits... except to the lazy?

Socialism does not fail repeatedly. It's a part of every nation on earth. Nations like my home country, the USA, are a mix of capitalism and socialism. Every government service that starts with "public," like "public parks," "public libraries," "public streets," and "public hospitals," are examples of the socialistic part of the economy. The contact argument in the USA is always about what the mix of socialism and capitalism should be, not whether there should be only one or the other. This is called a "Bayesian" economy. 

All people in our society will not be treated equally. Some of that is because of prejudices, such as lowered evaluations of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., as I suggested above. But also, some are based on people's physical condition and habits, such as being strong or weak, fast or slow, tall or short, good-looking or ugly, healthy or sickly, smart or dumb, and even energetic or lazy. All of these people are part of our society, and they all should have the same ability to access what they need from all that society has to offer. That's socialism.  

Their share of society's assets should not be based on their identities, skills, or contributions. That's capitalism.
 

[stoner]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

so I can call them the "Axis of Evil" 

 

the evil doers. 

 

now watch me hit this drive. 

[stoner]

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Their share of society's assets

 

are you sharing your assets with those you speak of ?

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

All of these people are part of our society, and they all should have the same ability to access what they need from all that society has to offer. That's socialism.  

Their share of society's assets should not be based on their identities, skills, or contributions. That's capitalism.

 

for you society should act before you do....to enforce your moral code. 

 

dinesh dsouza

[WDSmart]

8 minutes ago, stoner said:

15 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Their share of society's assets

 

are you sharing your assets with those you speak of ?

I do share some of my assets with others and even other non-humans, but I don't live in a country with a pure socialist economy. Like everyone else, Thailand is a Bayesian economy with a mix of more public assets than the USA.  If I lived in a society with a pure socialist economy, I wouldn't have any assets. There would only be "public" assets.  I would be assigned to use whatever public assets I required (if they existed).

[stoner]

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I do share some of my assets with others

 

like ?

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, stoner said:

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I do share some of my assets with others

 

like ?

My wife, my village, almost all those I interact with, the 12 abandoned dogs we've rescued, you, etc., ....

Edited July 7 by WDSmart

[stoner]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

My wife, my village, almost all those I interact with, the 12 abandoned dogs we've rescued, you, etc., ....

 

what kind of percentages are we talking about here ? 60 percent of your wealth ? your wife really ? 

 

 

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, stoner said:

 

what kind of percentages are we talking about here ? 60 percent of your wealth ? your wife really ? 

 

 

I've never considered that, but I'd estimate about 30%. I calculate that using my savings and monthly income.

But I'll say again: Your question is, IMO, not relevant. What I share of my personal assets in a Baysian economy doesn't matter. What matters is why I should have any personal assets at all, and what percentage of the society-as-a-whole's assets are shared with me and the public, 

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I've never considered that, but I'd estimate about 30%. I calculate that using my savings and monthly income.

But I'll say again: Your question is, IMO, not relevant. What I share of my personal assets in a Baysian economy doesn't matter. What matters is why I should have any personal assets at all, and what percentage of the society-as-a-whole's assets are shared with me and the public, 

 

then why don't you donate all of your assets ? live on social security and be happy to own nothing. you believe life is fair. tell that to a deer down at the watering hole who gets its neck snapped from an alligator.

 

you obviously worked hard in life to gather assets right ? why ? why didn't you live a life of selflessness ? why didnt you work non profit ? become a priest or a monk. live secluded in the forest living off bare essentials and minimums. 

 

how was your upbringing ? were your parents poor ? if so good on you for becoming more than them but....

 

all seems a little virtue signally to me.  

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

then why don't you donate all of your assets ? live on social security and be happy to own nothing. you believe life is fair. tell that to a deer down at the watering hole who gets its neck snapped from an alligator.

 

you obviously worked hard in life to gather assets right ? why ? why didn't you live a life of selflessness ? why didnt you work non profit ? become a priest or a monk. live secluded in the forest living off bare essentials and minimums. 

 

how was your upbringing ? were your parents poor ? if so good on you for becoming more than them but....

 

all seems a little virtue signally to me.  

I have no idea why you're asking all these questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked.

I don't donate all my assets because I need them to live. I live in Thailand, a Bayesian economy and one in which I, as a non-citizen, do not have access to all the public assets.
I do live primarily on social security. I would be happy to own nothing as long as I had access to the assets I needed.
I don't believe life is fair and don't expect it to be, but I do believe the major goal of any society is to care for its members - all of them.
Your story about the deer and the alligator is the theme of the "life of the jungle." And, yes, that's the basis for capitalism.
I worked to gather assets because I lived in the USA, a society with a Basayian economy, which, IMO, leaned heavily towards capitalism, so I didn't have a choice to live a "life of selflessness."

I rejected religions, so I did not become a priest or monk.

I have often thought of living in the forest off bare essentials, and in fact, my life now is moving more toward that, but I don't expect it will ever get to that extreme.

My upbringing was good. My parents were "upper middle class." I never desired to be exactly like them.

 

I don't know what you mean by "virtue signally," but I can say that now that I'm 78, retired, and living in the mountains of Thailand, I believe I can see things a lot clearer than when I was 35, working self-employed in IT (in what is now called "AI"), traveling all over the world to do contract work, mainly for banks, and never having the time to really think about topics like this one. 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I have no idea why you're asking all these questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked.

I don't donate all my assets because I need them to live. I live in Thailand, a Bayesian economy and one in which I, as a non-citizen, do not have access to all the public assets.
I do live primarily on social security. I would be happy to own nothing as long as I had access to the assets I needed.
I don't believe life is fair and don't expect it to be, but I do believe the major goal of any society is to care for its members - all of them.
Your story about the deer and the alligator is the theme of the "life of the jungle." And, yes, that's the basis for capitalism.
I worked to gather assets because I lived in the USA, a society with a Basayian economy, which, IMO, leaned heavily towards capitalism, so I didn't have a choice to live a "life of selflessness."

I rejected religions, so I did not become a priest or monk.

I have often thought of living in the forest off bare essentials, and in fact, my life now is moving more toward that, but I don't expect it will ever get to that extreme.

My upbringing was good. My parents were "upper middle class." I never desired to be exactly like them.

 

I don't know what you mean by "virtue signally," but I can say that now that I'm 78, retired, and living in the mountains of Thailand, I believe I can see things a lot clearer than when I was 35, working self-employed in IT (in what is now called "AI"), traveling all over the world to do contract work, mainly for banks, and never having the time to really think about topics like this one. 

 

What is a Basayian economy?

 

Is it spelled right? I can't find anything and there are too many near misses to make a guess.

 

[EVENKEEL]

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I disagree because I value societal issues more than economic issues. In other words, I am a left-leaning liberal who favors socialism, and above and IMO, you are expressing the perspective of a right-leaning conservative who favors capitalism.

It's true that hiring the most qualified candidate will most likely provide better service (and more profit) for an organization, but hiring candidates that enhance the diversity of the workplace gives opportunities to those who have not had an equal chance to develop their skills because of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and that helps enhance the diversity of the society as a whole.

Really? You want a so so Pilot who was hired based on DEI landing your plane. Or a pilot hired on merit.

[tgw]

53 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

What is a Basayian economy?

 

Is it spelled right? I can't find anything and there are too many near misses to make a guess.

 

 

you must be joking - first hit on google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_econometrics