Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

By CHRIS SCHNEIDMILLER; Times Leader Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 07, 1998     Page: 3A

SCRANTON- The facts might be right in broadcaster Terry McNulty’s age
discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, but the allegations are
all wrong, say attorneys for Citadel Broadcasting Co.
   
McNulty, 61, sued Citadel for $1.65 million and additional punitive damages
in July, claiming he was fired from WARM-AM because of his age. The station in
March replaced his show with syndicated talk-show host Don Imus.
    The lawsuit also claims Citadel defamed McNulty in promotional
announcements that interfered with his ability to find work by indicating he
only appeals to older listeners.
   
One of the company’s attorneys said Tuesday that McNulty’s show was
replaced for “legitimate business reasons.”
   
“There was no ill will or malevolent intent involved whatsoever,” said
Pittsburgh attorney John Myers. “There is no basis, in our opinion, to the
claims he’s making in the case.”
   
McNulty and his attorney, Michael Cowley of Scranton, could not be reached
for comment Tuesday.
   
The response to McNulty’s lawsuit was filed Sept. 18 with U.S. Magistrate
Raymond Durkin. It was not available for review until this week.
   
McNulty cannot maintain an age discrimination lawsuit because he failed to
exhaust the administrative procedures after filing a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the response states.
   
The broadcaster, whose actual first name is Anthony, also “has not used
reasonable diligence to mitigate his damages by seeking and obtaining other
employment,” according to the response.
   
Many factual details of McNulty’s termination in the lawsuit are endorsed
in the response. Both documents indicate WARM aired promotions stating
“W-A-R-M. We’re not for shut-ins anymore” after ending McNulty’s show.
   
But the response does not admit the lawsuit’s claim that the announcements
were “for the express and malevolent purpose of currying favor with younger
listeners at the expense of senior citizens, who were slurred, and plaintiff,
who was disparaged for commercial gain.”
   
All “allegedly defamatory” statements from Citadel were true and not
directed at McNulty, the response states. McNulty was a “limited purpose
public figure” and the station’s statements did not have the actual malice
necessary to be considered defamatory, it adds.
   
The lawsuit claims Citadel destroyed a large number of letters s