Broadcasters: Beware of the Disgruntled Former Employee

In a decision released this week, the FCC granted the application of an FM station for license renewal, denying petitions filed by two former employees who contended that the station had violated a number of FCC rules.  After the FCC inspected the station and found only a few minor issues with the station's public file, the license renewal was granted.  The FCC action was itself routine, but what it points out is that stations need to be very careful in their dealings with employees, especially employees who are about to leave their service.  This is not the first FCC case that was brought based on allegations made by former employees, and it will no doubt not be the last.  Putting aside the merits of the claims made in the complaints, the station had to endure a delayed renewal and no doubt significant legal expenses in bringing the matter to a resolution - which perhaps may have been avoided had there been better relationships with the former employees .  A few weeks ago, we wrote about the need to handle lay-offs and reductions in force in a manner that is least likely to cause legal problems for the station, and pointed to a memo from Davis Wright Tremaine's employment law practice that highlighted some considerations to keep in mind.  That memo is probably worth review once again in these troubling economic times where layoffs have become the norm at many broadcast stations.

The case also highlights the need for the broadcaster to be absolutely candid and forthright in its dealings with the FCC and the public.  A broadcaster may be tempted to fudge on certifications on FCC applications as to issues like whether it timely placed documents into the public file, or whether it did all the EEO outreach that was required for all of its job openings.  But, beyond the simple fact that you should tell the truth, there are usually employees that know what's happening at a station.  And, one day, those employees could become "disgruntled" (funny that no one ever talks about a "gruntled" employee), and seemingly innocent certifications that ignored some minor transgression can be blown up into a major issue - claims of misrepresentation or false certification which can cost broadcasters their licenses.  The admission of a missed deadline, incomplete public file or similar issue will at worst bring a fine, while the false certification can lead to much more.  Be candid, treat employees well - and stay out of trouble.

FCC Rules Require Non-Discrimination Clauses in All Advertising Sales Contracts - Act Now to Avoid Trouble Later

In the FCC’s recent Report and Order on Diversity, released earlier this year, the Commission announced new requirements for all broadcast station’s advertising sales contracts. The new FCC rule requires that all advertising contracts contain clauses ensuring that there is no discrimination based on race or gender in the sale of advertising time. This new requirement, which took effect in July, not only requires broadcasters to have these non-discrimination clauses in their advertising sales contracts, but will also require that broadcasters certify as to the existence of such clauses in their next license renewal application. Thus, to be sure that you can make such certifications, you must revise your advertising contracts to include a nondiscrimination provision, such as the one set out below, if you have not done so already. 

These new measures are intended to increase participation in the broadcast industry by businesses owned by women and minorities. The Commission was concerned that some advertising contracts include either explicit or implicit “no urban/no Spanish” dictates. Such contractual limitations, the Commission explained, may violate U.S. anti-discrimination laws by either presuming that certain minority groups cannot be persuaded to buy the advertiser’s product or service, or worse, intentionally minimizing the number African Americans or Hispanics patronizing advertisers’ businesses. 

The Commission decided not to mandate specific language for use in advertising contracts.  Nevertheless, the Commission plans to amend the license renewal application, Form 303-S, to require that broadcasters certify “that their contracts do not discriminate on the basis of race or gender and that such contracts contain nondiscrimination clauses.”   The current Form 303-S (dated July 2008) does not include such a certification, but the new rule only took effect July 15.  Updated renewal forms containing the required certification should be adopted in the near future, well before the start of the next license renewal cycle. Such a certification is likely to require that the broadcaster certify as to the existence of such clauses from this point forward.  Thus, broadcasters who have not already added a nondiscrimination clause to their advertising contracts should begin to do so now. 

 

The FCC refused to specify exactly what the certifications should say. We suggest language along the following lines:

 

This station does not discriminate in the sale of advertising time, and will accept no advertising which is placed with an intent to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity.  Advertiser hereby certifies that it is not buying broadcasting air time under this advertising sales contract for a discriminatory purpose, including but not limited to decisions not to place advertising on particular stations on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or ancestry.

 

The Commission has not made clear exactly how this requirement is to be implemented with respect to certain legitimate uses of advertising based on demographics. For instance, an advertiser who wants to place ads for a women’s clothing store, a medical practice that specializes in women’s health issues, or for other products specifically designed for woman will no doubt target their ads at stations with a high proportion of women in its audience. Similarly, if an advertiser wants to advertise a concert by a Spanish-language recording artist, they will more likely seek a station that reaches a population with a large Hispanic population. Presumably, this type of targeted advertising based on legitimate distinctions based on the inherent nature of a particular product is not prohibited, even though one could say that it is an advertising decision based on gender or ethnicity.  Instead, what the FCC seems to be targeting is advertising where a general market advertiser – e.g. a car dealer or a grocery store – provides instructions that it does not want its advertising running on stations targeted toward minority audiences. 

 

Stations should be careful not to accept general market ads that specifically exclude Spanish, urban or other stations based on race, ethnicity or gender. Stations should also instruct their staff not to either implicitly or explicitly encourage or accept advertising based on such criteria.  As is the case with any other FCC certification, just making the certification is not enough - the station must act in accord with the language of the certification it has made.  If a station were found to have accepted ads based on racial or gender criteria, yet it nevertheless made the certification, it could conceivably have not only discrimination issues before the FCC, but also misrepresentation issues to deal with.  Thus, staff education will be an important part of compliance with this rule.

 

Stations should immediately take necessary steps to comply with the Commission’s new anti-discrimination requirements for advertising. The new rule has not received much attention since its release, but broadcasters should comply with it now to avoid potential problems upon renewing their license.

Big Fines for Public File Violation that Escalated

The FCC released an order today, fining a broadcaster $20,000 for misrepresentations made in its license renewal application about the completeness of its public inspection file.  The fine issued in this case was not a fine for the fact that the file was incomplete (two stations in the cluster had each already been fined $4000 for the actual public file violations), but instead the fine was issued because the licensee had certified in its renewal application that the public file had been complete and accurate at all points during the course of the license term.  This case highlights both the need to keep an accurate public inspection file, and the need to carefully consider all certifications made in FCC applications.  Incorrect certifications can lead to fines and potentially even more severe sanctions if the FCC finds an intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor - the potential loss of a license.  Admitting a minor paperwork transgression like an incomplete public file will result in a fine - an inaccurate certification which appears to try to hide a problem can lead to far more severe consequences. 

In this case, the FCC found that the licensee had not maintained Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  The licensee claimed that its obligations had been met through a listing of public service announcements that the stations had put in their files.  The FCC rejected that argument, citing the requirement in its rules requiring that Quarterly Issues Programs lists contain "a narrative description of what issues were given substantial treatment" by the licensee as well as the programs that treated each issue.  In addition, the time and date of broadcast of each program, as well as its title and duration, is to be provided.  A simple list of PSAs does not meet these requirements - as it does not list the issues addressed, much less provide the detailed program information required by the rule.  For a summary of the Quarterly Issues Programs list obligations, and a model form to be used to meet the obligations, see our most recent memo on the subject, here.   Remember, the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists are a broadcast station's only official record of how they have served the public interest needs of its community, so be sure that adequate attention is paid to the completion of these forms.

Perhaps more troubling in this case was the fact that the licensee, despite having twice been fined for public file violations during the course of the license term (and having paid the fines, essentially admitting the violations), nevertheless went ahead and certified that the public file had been complete at all times during the course of the renewal term.  While the licensee tried to justify its answer based on the belief that the PSAs covered the requirement, the fact that it had already paid fines on this issue seems to point to the fact that the licensee was simply sloppy in filing out the license renewal, not paying attention to the certifications in the renewal and their actual meaning.

Similar inaccurate public inspection file certifications have previously caused broadcasters to be fined and, in the case of one California noncommercial station, the designation for hearing of a license renewal application to determine if the station's license should be revoked.  Once again, it is important to emphasize that the underlying misconduct, if admitted by the licensee, would have at most cost the licensee a fine of a few thousand dollars (and, in this case, as fines were already paid, quite possibly nothing more).  But the inaccurate certification, in and of itself, is one of the most serious offenses in the FCC's jurisdiction.  On any FCC application, it is much better to admit a violation and take whatever penalty may follow than to try to hide or obscure the violation.

This case serves as a warning to all broadcasters - honestly is the best policy, and care in completing FCC forms to avoid any appearance of dishonestly is essential.