Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Burke v. Cumulus Media, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

October 11, 2016

JOHNNY BURKE, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
CUMULUS MEDIA, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. and BONNIE HOLZHEI, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
CUMULUS MEDIA, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS MOOT

          THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On February 18, 2016 Plaintiffs Johnny Burke and Bonnie Holzhei (together “Plaintiffs”) commenced separate actions against their former employer, Defendant Cumulus Media, in Michigan state court in the county of Saginaw. Compl., ECF No. 1 Ex. A. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant terminated their employment as morning radio hosts at a local broadcast station, WHNN-FM/96.1 of Saginaw, Michigan (“WHNN”), because of their ages in violation of the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq. (“ELCRA”). Plaintiff Holzhei also claims that Defendants discriminated against her because of her gender in violation of ELCRA. Defendant removed the actions to this Court on April 4, 2016, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1.

         On April 11, 2016 Defendant Cumulus Media filed answers to Plaintiffs' complaints, along with fourteen counterclaims. See ECF No. 4. Defendant's counterclaims rest on allegations that, by broadcasting an internet morning show following their termination, Plaintiffs violated non-compete agreements between the parties and impermissibly accessed Defendant's confidential business information. Id. Defendant then filed motions for preliminary injunctions against each Plaintiff on April 18, 2016, seeking an order (1) enjoining Plaintiffs from continuing to broadcast the Internet Show in violation of their employment agreements; (2) enjoining Plaintiffs from continuing to use Cumulus's confidential information, continuing to use the name “Blondie”, and continuing to solicit Cumulus's current and former advertisers; (3) requiring Plaintiffs to make a detailed accounting of income generated from their competing activities; (4) requiring Plaintiffs to return all of Cumulus's confidential documentation and any record of trade secrets; (5) allowing the immediate commencement of discovery; and (6) awarding Cumulus attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to the parties' employment agreements. See ECF No. 8.

         Defendant's motions for preliminary injunctions were granted in part and denied in part on July 15, 2016. See ECF No. 27. Defendant's request for an immediate commencement of discovery was also denied as moot, as discovery had already commenced under a scheduling order issued by the Court on May 3, 2016. See ECF No. 14. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration under terms of the Plaintiffs' contracts. See ECF No. 28. Defendant has also moved for protective orders to preclude the taking of any discovery. Because Defendant has waived its ability to seek enforcement of any arbitration provision, its motions will be denied.

         I.

         WHNN is a broadcast station that has operated out of the Saginaw area for more than six decades. See Countercl. ¶ 10. WHNN was originally owned and operated by Citadel Broadcasting. In 2011 Defendant Cumulus acquired Citadel Broadcasting, thereby becoming the owner and operator of numerous Michigan-based radio stations including WHNN. Id. at ¶ 8. Following the acquisition Cumulus continued to use the call sign WHNN in association with all programming on the broadcasting station. Id. at ¶ 11.

         A.

         Plaintiffs Burke and Holzhei are residents of Saginaw, Michigan. See Compl. ¶ 5. Burke, who had served as a radio host on WHNN for around two decades, was known for the morning radio show he hosted, “Johnny Burke and the Morning Crew” (the “Radio Show”). See Countercl. ¶ 13. The Radio Show featured regular on-air participants, including Plaintiff Holzhei who appeared under the alias “Blondie.” Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. The Radio Show followed a regular format, with distinctive, recurrent segments based on the time of day or the day of the week. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Defendant's witness Julia Richardson acknowledged that Plaintiffs are “legends” in local radio.

         i.

         Prior to Cumulus's acquisition of Citadel Broadcasting, on March 16, 2010 Holzhei entered into an employment agreement with Citadel Broadcasting. See H. Employment Agreement, ECF No. 8 Ex. A. Pursuant to the agreement, Holzhei earned $31, 000 in annual compensation. Id. at ¶ 4. From March 16, 2010 to March 15, 2011, Holzhei could only be terminated for specific cause or through use of specific procedures, after which the employment reverted to “at-will.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 8.

         Holzhei's employment agreement contains the following arbitration provision:

Except for Employer-initiated disputes arising under or in connection with Sections 11 [exclusive negotiations], 12 [non-competition], 13 [non-solicitation], or 16 [confidentiality], all disputes arising under or in connection with this Agreement or concerning in any way Employee's employment, including but not limited to all contract, tort, quasi-contract, discrimination, retaliation, or statutory claims, shall be submitted exclusively to arbitration in Saginaw, MI under the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect, and the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. Such arbitration shall [be] final and binding on the parties and shall be the exclusive remedy for arbitrable claims. Employer and Employee hereby waive any rights each may have to a jury trial in regard to the arbitrable claims….

See H. Employment Agreement ¶ 22.

         Holzhei's Employment Agreement also contains a provision specifically authorizing her employer to seek injunctive relief and monetary damages in the event of a breach of the agreement:

Employee recognizes that the services to be rendered by Employee hereunder are of special, unique, unusual, extraordinary and intellectual character, are of an artistic and professional nature, require skill of the highest order, and further are of peculiar value, the loss of which cannot be adequately compensated for in damages…in the event of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement by the Employee, Employer shall be entitled, if it so elects, to institute and prosecute proceedings…to obtain damages, attorney's fees, costs, to enforce specific performance of such provisions, to restrain and/or enjoin Employee[.] Because a remedy at law for any breach of this provision may be inadequate, Employee agrees that…Employer shall have the remedies of a restraining order, injunction or other equitable relief to enforce the provisions hereof without posting bond and without the showing of irreparable injury.

Id. at ΒΆ 18 (emphasis added). Holzhei's Employment Agreement further provides that it is assignable to any entity that succeeds to ownership of the employer, and that such assignment could be effected without consent of Holzhei and without any additional ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.