Pacifica Defends Its Record, Responds to False Claims

BERKELEY, CA – Throughout its history, the Pacifica Foundation has fought for the elimination of gender bias, discrimination and sexual harassment in U.S. society and within its own ranks. Its employment practices clearly reflect this commitment. Nevertheless, there has been a recent and concerted attempt by a small number of people to distort Pacifica’s record and current practices for personal gain.

“Pacifica is being defamed and threatened by a small group who see it as an easy target,” charged Greg Guma, Pacifica’s Executive Director, in a public statement to the Board of Directors during its recent quarterly meeting in Los Angeles. “This represents a cynical, organized attempt to intimidate Pacifica, to undermine its finances, to spread disinformation, encourage cynicism, and gang up on the organization in an effort to extort settlements.”

This week, Pacifica’s General Counsel Dan Siegel followed up with a strongly worded letter to the attorneys for four current plaintiffs, warning them about false statements made in press releases and Internet traffic. Pacifica will “do everything that is required to defend the Foundation against frivolous claims and will aggressively pursue our own legal rights against those who misuse the legal process or make defamatory statements against us,” he warns.

Siegel’s letter, sent to California attorneys Wendy E. Musell, Elisa J. Stewart, Laurie Susan Gosline, Philip J. Ganz, and Toni J. Jaramilla, as well as New York attorney Carl C. Belgrave, outlines a series of concerns regarding recent public statements made by the lawyers concerning their clients’ disputes with the Foundation.

Pacifica’s commitment to fairness and equity in employment has been demonstrated, Siegel notes, by its careful consideration of the claims and, when warranted, the disciplining of managers. In addition, the organization has offered to settle several claims.

However, “the Foundation will not devote its limited resources to the settlement of claims that it views as without merit, will not settle claims for amounts that exceed their value, and will not fail to respond to defamatory statements about the organization and its leaders,” Siegel writes.

In July, a lawsuit brought by a member of the Local Station Board at KPFT, Pacifica’s sister station in Texas, was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes. In addition to dismissing the case, the judge advised that the Board member could be expelled from the Board for disrupting meetings and obstructing the station’s operations.

In recent statements by lawyers attempting or threatening to sue Pacifica, a variety of false claims are made. For example, their statements allege that women at Pacifica have faced “physical threats” and “sexual assaults.” This statement is inflammatory and untrue, and holds Pacifica up for undeserved public criticism, Siegel says.

The statements also falsely allege that Pacifica has failed to investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment, and has engaged in retaliation. In reality, all complaints have been fully investigated and those making the complaints remain employed by Pacifica in the same jobs with the same compensation that they received before making their complaints.

In his remarks to the Pacifica National Board, Guma was blunt. “Pacifica is not the horrible, oppressive, discriminatory workplace its critics would have the public believe,” he said. “Their lies, fabrications, and self-serving disinformation must be disavowed and challenged.”

In his letter, Siegel adds that Pacifica will continue to oppose discrimination and harassment, and certainly won’t retaliate against anyone who makes a complaint. In fact, as its record clearly demonstrates, the Foundation “will do everything possible to fairly remediate complaints that are brought to our attention.”

On the other hand, Siegel also reminds the lawyers involved in current cases that they have an obligation to verify the accuracy of the charges filed over their signatures. If the foundation finds that malicious prosecution or libel is involved, it “will not hesitate to bring such actions when justified by the facts,” he warns.