In the Matter of Sueanne Bevine, v. CNN America, Inc.

                              District of Columbia Office of Human Rights.

Office of Human Rights rules in favor of Complainant's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss submitted by David Cashdan, Esq. on behalf of Sueanne Bevine.

ORDER

The Office of Human Rights (the "OHR") has completed it review of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss filed on January 30, 2009 and Complainant's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss filed on February 13, 2009. Pursuant to the district of Columbia Human rights Act (DCHRA), DC. Code δ 2-1401.01 et seq., (2002 ED.), the OHR hereby issues its Findings of Fact and Law and Order

Subject of the Motion

Respondent CNN America, Inc. (CNN) moved the OHR to dismiss Complainant's Charge of Discrimination because she fails to state a claim for which she is entitled. On the one hand, respondent contended that the Complainant's claim was barred by the applicable statue of limitation. On the her hand, respondent contended that Complainant's allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of personal appearance.

Respondent's Position
1) Complainant filed a charge with the OHR on December 9, 2008 alleging that respondent denied on-air work to her by letter received September 10, 2007. Complainant failed to allege any violation occurred after September 10, 2007. Complainant's date of filing her charge was not within the statutory timeframe of 1 year.

2) Complainant alleged that respondent denied on-air work to her because of her personal appearance. She stated that Respondent hired "beautiful people" but failed to note that Respondent perceived her as "not beautiful." Complainant failed to allege anything about her personal appearance other than that she is a middle-aged, older; thus, she did not establish that she belonged to the protected class.

Complainant's Opposition
Complainant submits the following facts as reasons for denying Respondent's motion:

1) After being denied air time on September 10, 2007, Complainant filed a charge with the EEOC on October 3, 2007 alleging age and gender discrimination based on Respondent's denial to her of on-air work. Complainant submitted an online Intake questionnaire to the OHR on September 6, 2008. The EEOC was already investigating her allegations of age and gender; the OHR accepted only the allegation of appearance discrimination. The Worksharing Agreement between OHR and EEPC provide for mutual automatic cross filing of charges; therefore the substance of her claims was file don a timely basis with the OHR on October 3, 2007.

2) Complainant's Charge of Discrimination alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of her personal appearance (middle age). The terminology "middle age" and "young, beautiful female"s fits the plain meaning of the statutory language "outward appearance of any person" with regard to "bodily condition or characteristics" .

Legal Analysis

Complainant's charge of personal appearance discrimination was timely filed. As upheld by the Court in Ivey v. District of Columbia, a cross- filing from the EEOC by virtue of the Worksharing Agreement results in a timely filing with the OHR.

Complainant establishes a prima facie case for personal appearance discrimination.
The D.C. Human Rights Act defines personal appearance as the outward appearance of any person, irrespective of sex, with regard to bodily condition or characteristics: D.C. Code §2-1401.02(22). Whether or not she used the term "beautiful" when referring to herself does not negate the fact that she alleged that she was subjected to adverse treatment because of her appearance. Moreover, Complainant is not precluded from filing both a claim for age discrimination and personal appearance discrimination based on the same incident.

Conclusion
The OHR hereby finds that the respondent has failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support its Motion to Dismiss on the bases that Complainant's charge was not timely filed and that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case for which relief should be granted.

Therefore the OHR:

DENIES RESPONDENT?S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANT'S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gustavo Velasquez Director, on March 26, 2009

David R. Cashdan , Esq. of Cashdan & Kane, PLLC on behalf of the Complainant Sue Anne Bevine.

Lisa H. Reeves Esq. Senior counsel for CNN America