Rather May Struggle to Prove Larger Case

Dan Rather's best chance of winning his $70 million lawsuit against CBS appears to be a contract violation that did not give him him enough air time, employment lawyers told ABC News.

It may be more difficult for the former anchor to prove other dramatic allegations that accuse the network of making him a scapegoat for an unsubstantiated story about President Bush's military service, they said.

Though tens of millions of dollars and big-name personalities are involved, employment lawyers say Rather's case appears to come down to a basic contract dispute. The outcome will likely depend on the wording and interpretation of the contract and lawyers warned it was too soon to say whether Rather had a winning case.

"If he gets to a jury, it seems like a very viable claim," said Merrick Rossein, who teaches employment law at the City University of New York, after reading Rather's complaint.

Rather's other allegations — accusing the network of fraud for misleading him and of using him as a scapegoat to curry favor with the Bush administration — could be more difficult to prove, especially given that Rather publicly apologized for his handling of the 2004 story on Bush's National Guard service during the Vietnam War, employment lawyers said.

"It's an uphill battle," said David Wachtel, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who handles employment disputes. "I think he has a difficult case."

CBS denied the allegations, saying in a statement, "These complaints are old news and this lawsuit is without merit."

'He's Mad'

But, beyond any money he may obtain, the lawsuit could give Rather a chance to publicly revisit his handling of the 2004 story and the circumstances of his departure from CBS. He has stood by his handling of the story.

The suit was filed against the network, its corporate parent, Viacom Inc., and three of his former bosses: Viacom Inc. chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS News CEO Leslie Moonves and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

"It's about punishing people he's mad at and airing his story of the story because he doesn't think it's been told," said Mark Obbie, director of the Carnegie Legal Reporting Program at Syracuse University and the former editor of American Lawyer magazine.

To prove his case, lawyers said Rather would try to take sworn testimony of CBS and Viacom executives, including Moonves and Redstone, which could pressure the network to settle.

"It's surprising how many cases settle the day before the deposition of the CEO," said Wayne Outten, a New York employment law attorney.

Rather said in a statement that he would donate most of any verdict "to causes that will further journalistic independence." He told The New York Times, "I'd like to know what really happened. Let's get under oath. Let's get e-mails. Let's get who said what to whom, when and for what purpose."

That raises the possibility of an ugly, public dispute over the reasons for Rather's departure from CBS, with both sides seeking to cast each other in the worst possible light.

'Mutually Assured Destruction'

"This is going to end up hurting everybody," said Cameon Stracher, co-director of the Program in Law and Journalism at New York Law School and a former attorney for CBS. "It's almost mutually assured destruction."

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...