Schultz v. Weatherhunters

Background

William Schultz and Home Plate Entertainment Company sued Weatherhunters, Inc., Al Roker Entertainment, Inc., Al Roker, and Lisa Tucker. The lawsuit concerns a January 2023 services agreement under which Schultz, through Home Plate, provided services for an animated children’s television series called Weather Hunters. The agreement provided for a flat fee, a share of Weatherhunters’ defined net revenue, and executive-producer and creative-development credits.

The complaint alleged that the production was subject to a diversity, equity, and inclusion policy. Plaintiffs alleged that Tucker and others tried to avoid that policy by favoring white writers over Black, Indigenous, and other people of color writers. Schultz allegedly objected to those efforts and complained about racial statements and the dismantling of the policy. Weatherhunters then issued a notice giving Schultz an opportunity to cure alleged contract breaches and later terminated the agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that the termination was retaliation for Schultz’s objections.

Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. They sought dismissal of all claims except the breach-of-contract claim against Weatherhunters.

Claims Allowed to Continue

The court denied dismissal of the breach-of-contract claims against Al Roker Entertainment and Weatherhunters. Plaintiffs alleged that Al Roker Entertainment controlled Weatherhunters and may have been its alter ego, meaning a corporation so controlled by another entity that the other entity may be treated as the real actor. The court held that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged control, wrongdoing, and resulting injury sufficient to continue that theory at the pleading stage.

The court also denied dismissal of Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. It held that a person may be protected from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices even if that person is not alleged to belong to the protected racial group affected by the challenged practices. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged protected opposition, an adverse action through termination of the agreement, and a connection between the opposition and termination.

The court denied dismissal of the claim under New York Labor Law § 740, the state whistleblower law. That law protects an employee from retaliation for reporting or threatening to report conduct the employee reasonably believes violates a law, rule, or regulation. The court relied on its analysis of the discrimination-retaliation claims in finding that Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded this claim.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed the breach-of-implied-covenant claim because it was based on the same alleged termination conduct as the breach-of-contract claims. It also dismissed the claims for implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment because the parties’ written agreement governed the dispute and those claims duplicated the contract claims.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. It held that the alleged racial slurs, discriminatory statements, and discriminatory practices, while concerning if true, did not meet the required level of extreme and outrageous conduct and did not plausibly show an intent to cause severe emotional distress.

The court dismissed the negligent-supervision and failure-to-control claim against Al Roker because Plaintiffs did not allege an employer-employee relationship between Roker and the alleged wrongdoers or facts showing that Roker exercised the required degree of day-to-day supervision or control. It also dismissed the tortious-interference claim against Al Roker Entertainment because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the company’s objective was to cause Weatherhunters to breach its contract.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Defendants’ motion with respect to the Fourth through Eleventh Causes of Action and otherwise denied the motion. The court denied Defendants’ request to dismiss the claims with prejudice. It granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the dismissed claims and required any further amended complaint to be filed by October 20, 2025. The order terminated the pending motion.