## Facts

- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought a Title VII action alleging that National Broadcasting Company, Inc. refused to hire Enid Roth as a staff director in NBC Sports because of her sex.
- Roth, an NBC employee since 1952, had substantial experience in NBC’s News division in multiple roles, including director, and sought a staff director position in Sports.
- NBC did not select Roth for the Sports staff director position(s) she sought; plaintiffs alleged reliance on sex-based stereotypes about women’s ability to handle sports broadcasting.
- Plaintiffs also pointed to a prior class action resolved by a 1977 consent decree that settled pre–March 28, 1977 Title VII sex-discrimination claims and set time-limited “utilization goals” for women to be achieved by the end of 1981.
- The EEOC investigated Roth’s administrative charge and issued a right-to-sue letter in July 1983; the EEOC sued and Roth intervened.
- The case was tried to the court in a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether NBC’s refusal to hire Roth as a staff director in NBC Sports constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
2. Whether NBC articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision, and whether plaintiffs proved those reasons were pretext for discrimination.
3. What evidentiary significance, if any, the prior consent decree and its utilization goals had for proving discrimination in the challenged post-decree hiring decision.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for NBC after trial and dismissed Roth’s complaint.
- The court found plaintiffs failed to prove that Roth was denied a Sports staff director position because of her sex.
- The court credited NBC’s asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons tied to job-related qualifications and business judgment for Sports programming.
- The court treated the prior consent decree’s utilization goals as contextual background, not as a quota or determinative proof of Title VII liability for a later individual hiring decision.

## Legal Principles

- In an individual Title VII disparate-treatment case, the ultimate question is whether the challenged employment action was taken “because of” the plaintiff’s protected status.
- Under the burden-shifting framework, after an employer produces legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the plaintiff retains the burden to prove intentional discrimination by showing those reasons are pretextual.
- A prior consent decree with utilization goals does not, by itself, establish discrimination in a later personnel decision; an individual plaintiff must still prove discriminatory motive tied to the specific decision at issue.
- Credibility findings and comparative evidence of job-related qualifications may support a finding that an employer acted for legitimate reasons rather than discriminatory animus.

## Conclusion

After a bench trial, the court concluded that NBC’s decision not to hire Roth as a Sports staff director was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory considerations and that the EEOC and Roth did not prove those reasons were pretext for sex discrimination under Title VII.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 753 F. Supp. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)