A few months back, a former Audacy seller filed a lawsuit against the Philadelphia radio company, claiming that discrimination and retaliation played a role in his firing. Paul Bolognone, who reportedly suffers from “a serious heart condition,” alleges that he was terminated after lodging “internal complaints regarding sexually inappropriate comments made by his supervisor and a co-worker regarding a female employee.”

In the filing, it’s claimed that other sales employees were overheard talking about whether or not they would “fuck” said female employee, and another reportedly made an inappropriate comment about Seth Joyner’s penis. It then goes on to say that Bolognone emailed human resources about these comments, but “received no response”  and was later terminated.

Bolognone is seeking damages for discrimination and retaliation, plus back pay and associated punitive damages and legal fees. In response, Audacy is asking for a portion of his complaint to be dismissed:

The easiest way to describe this is that the original filing alleges that Audacy’s actions amount to violations of several statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, “and – in the alternative to the LAD—the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”

Audacy is arguing that Bolognone does not work out of New Jersey, therefore the portion of his filing that involves New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) should be tossed.


Here’s their explanation in the response:

It is respectfully asserted that Plaintiff’s claim under the NJLAD must be dismissed because Plaintiff was a Pennsylvania employee working for a Pennsylvania company, and the events alleged in the Complaint took place in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the employment laws of New Jersey, including the protections afforded by the NJLAD, do not apply to Plaintiff’s employment with Audacy, and therefore, Plaintiff’s NJLAD must be dismissed.

…

It is undisputed that Plaintiff worked from Audacy’s office located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With exception to limited time periods when Plaintiff was allowed to work from home as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the time period Plaintiff was granted an accommodation to work from home due to a health issue, Plaintiff would report to and work out of the Philadelphia location. Further, Plaintiff’s employee records are maintained in the Philadelphia location, and Plaintiff was paid as a Pennsylvania employee. His email signature line identified the Philadelphia location of Audacy and contained a telephone number with a Philadelphia area code. In addition, all of the advertising packages Plaintiff sold, or attempted to sell, as an employee of Audacy were exclusively for Pennsylvania based radio stations.

Moreover, all of the alleged conduct which Plaintiff claims is unlawful occurred in the Philadelphia location. All decisions relating to Plaintiff’s employment, including the decisions to grant Plaintiff’s requests for leave, requests to work from home, to place him on a performance improvement plan, and to terminate his employment, were all made by management who work at the Philadelphia location. The simple fact that Plaintiff happened to reside in New Jersey, and was working from his residence in New Jersey as a result of the pandemic and/or after requesting and obtaining an accommodation with respect to his health issue, does not justify the application of New Jersey law.

Essentially it goes to the court now and the judge decides which portions of the lawsuit are valid and which are not. Moreso, there’s a technicality with EEOC filings where you basically submit your grievance, then it’s investigated before you’re given the right to sue. That’s a fancy way of saying that you need to go through a governmental process before you can bring litigation of this type against your former employer.