Chief United States District Judge Eric Melgren ruled on Monday that former “96.5 The Buzz” KRBZ-FM Kansas City morning host Afentra Bandokoudis’ suit against Audacy Kansas City alleging sex-based pay discrimination may proceed to trial as it denies the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the company.
Bandokoudis sued then-Entercom in March 2020 accusing the company that male personalities including “98.9 The Rock” KQRC morning host Johnny Dare were paid larger salaries despite her morning show “consistently outperforming” them and that her firing in August 2018 was retaliatory in nature.
She had joined KRBZ in 2002 as Kenny Holland’s co-host before taking over as lead host for what was rebranded as “Afentra’s Big Fat Morning Buzz” in 2003. After relocating to sister “107.7 The End” KNDD Seattle in 2007, she moved back to KRBZ in August 2008 and remained for a decade. Following her exit from KRBZ, she spent a few months in afternoons at Cumulus Media’s crosstown “X105.1” KCJK Garden City from February to September 2019. She has not worked on-air since.
Bandokoudis argues that her position was substantially equal to Dare with similar duties, responsibilities, skills and effort required to perform and worked under similar conditions while Entercom said that she and Dare were not head-to-head competitors with different responsibilities and that she had attendance issues requiring additional supervision. The case notes that a dispute arose between the two sides over the attendance issues that stated that prior to a meeting in October 2017 in which she had been pre-recording the 6am hour of her show and on Wednesdays into the 7 and 8am hours. Then Operations Manager Bob Edwards first wanted Bandokoudis to be live in-studio by 7am and then after she failed to arrive until 8:45 one day, mandated that as of 12/31/17 she be live in-studio at 6am. He then began logging her arrival to correlate back to her ratings.
Bandokoudis asserted that Edwards’ records of her attendance were inaccurate and that the focus on her attendance was part of a broader scheme of retaliation and gender-based discrimination, as other male radio hosts at Entercom were allowed to continue pre-recording parts of their shows. She also stated that she was removed of administrator of the station’s social media accounts, posts promoting her show were deleted, and the company ceased marketing and selling her show, resulting in the declining ratings cited.
In the discussing whether to proceed with the argument against the differences in pay between her and Dare, Judge Melgren writes, “Although Defendant (Entercom) argues throughout its briefing that many factors justify the difference in pay between Plaintiff (Bandokoudis) and Dare, it lacks clear testimony from a decisionmaker stating that these were the reasons for the difference in pay. Further, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s ratings and audience demographic ranking were consistently high when she entered into her last contract with Entercom. And the only clear testimony regarding the numerical differences in revenues between Dare and Plaintiff are for years after Plaintiff entered her last contract with Entercom—meaning those differences could have no bearing on the decision to pay Plaintiff less than Dare. The Court therefore concludes that a reasonable factfinder could find that Defendant’s explanation for the disparity in pay is unworthy of belief. Because Plaintiff has met her burden under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, her Title VII pay discrimination claim survives summary judgment.”
The judge also denied Entercom’s request for summary judgment as to the Equal Pay Act claim stating, “Generally, a system measuring quantity or quality of output refers to “a bona fide incentive system,” such as an equal dollar per unit compensation rate or commission program. Although “[t]here is no discrimination when one employee produces more and is therefore compensated more,” a pay differential is not justified where “women had to produce more work in order to be paid the same as men. First, in arguing that Plaintiff’s pay was based on a system measuring quality or quantity of output, Defendant cites to no real system. Instead, Defendant cites its Operations Manager’s amorphous explanation of what he considers in determining salaries and argues that Plaintiff’s performance issues cost Defendant $1,000,000 and hindered her ratings and ability to drive revenue. These arguments fail to provide the Court with a basis to determine that Plaintiff and Dare’s pay differential was based on a bona fide incentive system.”
He follows, “But Defendant’s evidence points only to the criteria used in determining Plaintiff’s pay. It says nothing of the criteria used to set Dare’s pay. Without evidence of a system applied equally to Plaintiff and Dare, Defendant fails to meet its burden with respect to this affirmative defense.”
