ShareThis Page
Judge rules on information requests in Wendy Bell discrimination case |

Judge rules on information requests in Wendy Bell discrimination case

Wendy Bell, former WTAE news anchor

A federal judge ruled Thursday on several requests for information in the discrimination lawsuit filed by former WTAE news anchor Wendy Bell.

Among them, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy said attorneys for station owner Hearst Stations Inc. must identify all employees who have been disciplined for violating the company’s ethics policies over the past decade, said Sam Cordes, an attorney for Bell.

Hearst also must identify all employees who filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint within the past 10 years and provide personnel files for two employees whose misconduct didn’t result in any disciplinary action, Cordes said. The latter files will not be released publicly.

Eddy also gave Cordes until Aug. 21 to amend Bell’s complaint to include a potential gender discrimination claim.

WTAE said it fired Bell for an online comment she posted using a company Facebook account following the March 9, 2016, massacre of five people and an unborn child in a backyard barbecue ambush in Wilkinsburg. Bell speculated in the post about the race and family background of the shooters and contrasted that profile with her recent encounter with a black busboy.

The company fired her March 30, 2016.

Bell sued the station in June 2016, claiming racial discrimination. She claimed through her attorney that she wouldn’t have been fired for her comments if she were not white.

An attorney for Hearst could not be reached.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.