## Facts

- Don Lark worked as a television-news anchor for Post-Newsweek Stations, Connecticut, Inc. (doing business as WFSB Channel 3) since 1979 under successive written employment agreements.
- The employment agreement in dispute consisted of (1) a letter agreement and (2) incorporated standard “talent contract clauses” used by the station (together, the employment agreement).
- The letter agreement stated that Lark would be on-air as an anchor during two designated time slots (the 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. newscasts).
- The incorporated talent contract clauses included a “pay-no-play” provision allowing the station to keep Lark off-air so long as it continued paying his contractual salary.
- Lark claimed he accepted less compensation than he otherwise would have sought because he expected to remain the on-air anchor in those specific time slots during the contract term.
- In 1994, Lark believed the station intended to replace him in those anchor slots with another anchor and, before the change occurred, sued the station for anticipatory breach of the employment agreement.
- Lark sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief that would specifically enforce the alleged time-slot commitment by preventing the station from taking him off-air in those newscasts.
- The station argued that removing Lark from the broadcasts would not breach the agreement if it continued to pay him under the pay-no-play provision.
- The station also argued that an order forcing it to air a particular anchor would interfere with its editorial control over its newscasts and implicate First Amendment concerns.
- The employment agreement was lightly negotiated and largely continued the parties’ existing relationship, which had been governed by similar contract terms.
- At the evidentiary hearing on injunctive relief, testimony conflicted on whether losing the on-air anchor slots would cause Lark irreparable career harm, and there was testimony that the lawsuit was distracting to newsroom staff.
- After the hearing, the station invoked the pay-no-play provision, informing Lark it would keep him off-air in the disputed time slots while continuing to pay his salary.

## Issues

1. Whether, given the time-slot language in the letter agreement and the pay-no-play clause in the incorporated talent contract clauses, the station’s plan to keep Lark off-air while continuing to pay him supported injunctive relief for anticipatory breach.
2. Whether a court may issue temporary or permanent injunctive relief that effectively requires a television station to use a particular anchor on-air in specified newscasts, in light of limits on specific enforcement of personal service contracts and the station’s editorial control/First Amendment objections.

## Decision

- The court denied Lark’s applications for both temporary and permanent injunctions.
- Treating the letter agreement and the incorporated talent contract clauses as a single employment agreement, the court concluded the pay-no-play provision permitted the station to keep Lark off-air while paying his salary, weakening Lark’s claim that he was entitled to an order keeping him on-air.
- The court determined that the requested injunction would function as specific enforcement of a personal service contract by dictating on-air performance and continued working conditions, a form of relief courts generally refuse to grant.
- The court accepted that ordering a broadcaster to place (or keep) a specific person in an anchor role would improperly place the court in a position of controlling editorial staffing choices for newscasts and raised serious First Amendment concerns.
- Given the nature of the dispute and the availability of legal remedies, the court concluded that any recovery Lark might obtain should be pursued through damages rather than an order forcing the station to air him.

## Legal Principles

- An integrated employment agreement that includes a pay-no-play clause may permit the employer to withhold on-air work while continuing to pay salary, limiting the basis for injunctive relief aimed at forcing on-air use.
- Courts generally refuse to order specific enforcement of personal service contracts, particularly where the order would require ongoing supervision or compel a working relationship to continue in a particular form.
- Injunctions that would direct a broadcaster’s on-air personnel assignments risk judicial interference with editorial control and raise significant First Amendment problems, weighing heavily against equitable relief.
- Injunctive relief requires a showing that legal remedies are inadequate; where money damages can address the alleged loss, a mandatory injunction is typically inappropriate.

## Conclusion

In Lark v. Post-Newsweek Stations, the Connecticut Superior Court refused to order a television station to keep an anchor on-air in specified newscasts because the employment agreement included a pay-no-play provision permitting the station to sideline the anchor while paying his salary, and because compelling on-air placement would amount to disfavored specific enforcement of a personal service contract and intrude on editorial control; any remedy, if available, lay in damages rather than injunctive relief.


Lark v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3055 (1994)