Don Imus may be suing CBS over his firing. According to CNN, his contract contains the following clause:
In his contract, CBS states openly that they want him to provide irreverent, controversial, and personal programming. The comment that got him fired would certainly fit into all these categories.
I don’t want to defend Imus, but it looks to me like CBS is screwed here. They specifically requested irreverence and controversy in his contract. What do you think?
(Oh, and whoever negotiated that contract for Imus- genius.)
I think he’ll win a settlement out of court. I hope he doesn’t settle for less than the $40M he has coming. I’m not defending him, either. But it’s high time CBS let the sheep’s clothing drop. We all know that there was no “shock”, “outrage” or last minute realization of what Imus’s show was about. Al Sharpton was lamely trying to make it about racist and sexist remarks that weren’t specifically stated as “acceptable schtick” in the contract. I guess someone ought to toss him a dictionary so he can look up the meanings of the ords “irreverent”, “controversial” and “personal.”
I hate to mix topics here, but it’s just like the whole illegal immigration hubbub. Everyone uses the guy at the bottom as the scapegoat when tacit approval for All The Bad Stuff™ has been SOP for the guys in control, since…forever.
I’m not sure that part has been released. My guess is that if Imus’s lawyers were smart enough to put the onus on CBS, they wouldn’t have allowed a contradictory termination clause either. I suppose we’ll see more in the next few days.
I agree, an out-of-court settlement is likely. Imus won’t want his “nappy-headed hos” comment to get any more play than it already has, and CBS will want to cut its losses. Right now, given that contractual provision, I’d say Imus has the upper hand.
Exactly- his lawyers would be idiots to have a contract that says “be obnoxious, offensive and controversial, but we reserve the right to fire you if you get *too * obnoxious, offesnive or controversial”.
Yes they are screwed. Just like they were screwed when they fired Opie and Anthony. They had to pay them the entire contract. They also made it impossible for them to work for someone else during the remainder of the contract. Probably Imus will either be able to get out of the contract and be able to work somewhere else or he’ll get the money and ride horses on his ranch.
I think he’ll have a hard time proving that he had any loss because of the dispute.
The suit would serve only one purpose, to free him from any other provisions so he could get a job on satellite
The question I would have is what contract provisions there were for keeping advertisers. They were jumping ship in droves right before the firing, and everyone knows that the money talks in business.
I don’t think advertisers were jumping ship from Opie and Anthony in quite the same way.
I don’t know. I think that maybe if he can get a jury to rule that he did it because that’s what CBS made him do, it gets him off the hook. Just a WAG.
Obviously not familiar with the details of the contract, but I did see that CBS had a clause in there that if they were, I think something like held up for public ridicule or had their credibility or reputation tarnished because of something he did, that they could fire him.
Which, if true, makes it a battle of the clauses. Settlement time.
Imus was fired after 90%+ of his sponsors cancelled. Unless CBS was foolish enough to put his “behavior” in the letter telling him he was dismissed, I suspect that a lawsuit would not be quite the sure bet that some are supposing. Since nearly all such suits are settled out of court, (since insurance companies are more afraid of letting twelve people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty make that sort of decision), I will not be at all surprised if there is an out of court settlement, but i am not sure that the contract so far displayed guarantees Imus a clear shot at a win.
Do we have the whole contract? Do we have his whole rate follower? Is the warning independent of any other action by either party? Or is it linked to misbehavior? Do we know that Imus has never received an earlier warning for one of his earlier actions? According to the paraphrase in the report to which you linked, he got a “one bite” clause for being obnoxious. If the firing was based on his having cost the company significant revenue and not directly tied to his words, then CBS has an argument.
I have clearly not seen the whole contract and I am not about to claim that one position or another will hold, (and I have already noted that I expect an out of court settlement). I simply am not persuaded by the public evidence currently available that Imus has enough ammunition to reject a settlement and pin CBS to the wall for contract violation.
I don’t. But if this did happen, CBS had better hope they did it in writing. If they claim they verbally warned him, I don’t think a judge would consider that evidence the contract had been complied with.
Ha! I was yakking with my friend over the issue, who pointeed out that it was a radio host’s job to be a loudmouth idiot (or at least get lots of loudmouth idiots on the air), hence it was rather disingenuous to fire him over it. Heck, the man ought to have been given a raise, and the advertising rates raised! Who wasn’t going to listen in after that fiasco?
