This Document Contains Sensitive Data

NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

______

§ CRAIG JAMES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § v. § § FOX SPORTS, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; ARC HOLDING, LTD. § DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; § SPORTS HOLDING, INC. DBA FOX § § SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX § BROADCASTING COMPANY DBA FOX § SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS § NET, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; FOX NETWORKS § GROUP, INC. FKA FOX SPORTS NET § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX § CABLE NETWORKS, INC. DBA FOX § SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS § NETWORKS, LLC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS MEDIA § GROUP DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; FOX ENTERTAINMENT § § GROUP, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; 21ST CENTURY FOX § AMERICA, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; TWENTY-FIRST § CENTURY FOX, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS § SOUTHWEST; JON HEIDTKE, MIKE § § ANASTASSIOU, JEFF KROLIK, LOU § D’ERMILIO, ERIC SHANKS, and RANDY § FREER, § § § Defendants. _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

I. Overview

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Craig James (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “James”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby files Plaintiff’s Original Petition (the “Petition”) seeking damages arising from the improper actions of Defendants FOX SPORTS, INC. DBA

FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; ARC HOLDING, LTD. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST; SPORTS HOLDING, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX

BROADCASTING COMPANY DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS NET,

INC. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX NETWORKS GROUP, INC. FKA FOX

SPORTS NET DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX CABLE NETWORKS, INC.

DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS NETWORKS, LLC. DBA FOX

SPORTS SOUTHWEST; FOX SPORTS MEDIA GROUP DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST; FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST; 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST; TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST; JON HEIDTKE; MIKE ANASTASSIOU; JEFF KROLIK; LOU

D’ERMILIO; ERIC SHANKS; and RANDY FREER (collectively, “Defendants” or “Fox

Sports”), and for cause of action shows:

1. Through the actions of its executives, including its President and its Vice

President of Communications, Fox Sports hired Craig James as a sportscaster, then terminated him for his religious beliefs—religious beliefs he expressed before working there, more than a year prior. Fox Sports then, for publicity’s sake, announced to the national media it had done so.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 2. Fox Sports fired Craig James because of his religious beliefs about marriage and his expression of those beliefs during a debate when James ran in the Texas Republican primary for United States Senator. Fox Sports announced to the public that it terminated James because of his religious views on marriage. In fact, as the news reported, Fox Sports stated: “‘We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,’ said a

Fox Spokesman[,] ‘He couldn’t say those things here.’” Until that time, James spent his entire adult life in the public eye. He played on teams with people from diverse backgrounds; he worked for media companies for more than two decades with people from diverse backgrounds.

James also hired an openly gay man as an important campaign consultant because he valued that person’s expertise regardless of his sexual orientation. Fox Sports fired James for one reason only: his religious beliefs about marriage. In so doing, Fox Sports violated the law. Specifically,

Fox Sports violated the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) and Texas contract law along with a myriad of equitable principles.

II. Discovery Control Plan

3. Plaintiff in this case intends to conduct discovery under level 3 of Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

III. Claim for Relief

4. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or more, declaratory relief, punitive/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 IV. Parties

5. Plaintiff CRAIG JAMES is an individual who is a resident of Collin County,

Texas. At all times relevant to the employment cause of action, James was employed by

Defendants.

6. Through counsel, Defendants agreed to accept service via counsel Vanessa

Griffith at [email protected] or her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center,

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Counsel affirmed in writing that she is

“authorized to accept service on behalf of any Fox employee or entity,” which includes every

Defendant in this action. Moreover, she explicitly accepted service on the entities and individuals in this lawsuit, named in a prior mitigation demand, for whom she specifically averred she would accept service. Exh. A (agreement regarding service, incorporated by reference).

7. Defendant FOX SPORTS, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at

1013 Centre Road, Suite 850, Wilmington, DE 19805 and it may be served with citation and

Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001

Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of

Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.

This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX SPORTS, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX

ENTERTAINMENT.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4

8. Defendant ARC HOLDING, LTD. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST, is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of and doing business in the State of

Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains a principal place of business in Los

Angeles, California, and operations in Dallas County, Texas, at 100 E Royal Ln #200 Irving, TX

75039. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of

Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX

75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, ARC

HOLDING, LTD. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

9. Defendant SPORTS HOLDING, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST is a

Texas Corporation and general partner of ARC HOLDING, LTD., organized and existing under the laws of and doing business in the State of Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains a principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California, and operations in Dallas

County, Texas, at 100 E Royal Ln #200 Irving, TX 75039. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow

Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in

Texas. Upon information and belief, SPORTS HOLDING, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5 10. Defendant FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at 10201 West Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell

Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in

Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

11. Defendant FOX SPORTS NET, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at

10201 West Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035 . Defendant m ay be served with citation and

Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001

Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of

Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.

This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX SPORTS NET, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX

ENTERTAINMENT.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6 12. Defendant FOX NETWORKS GROUP, INC. FKA FOX SPORTS NET DBA

FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief,

Defendant’s principal office is located at 10201 West Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035 .

Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson

& Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975.

Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with

Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX NETWORKS GROUP, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

13. Defendant FOX CABLE NETWORKS, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in

Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX CABLE NETWORKS, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7 14. Defendant FOX SPORTS NETWORKS, LLC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign company organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is

located at 10201 West Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035 . Defendant m ay be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has

agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow

Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business

in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas.

Upon information and belief, FOX SPORTS NETWORKS, LLC. is a wholly owned subsidiary

of Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

15. Defendant FOX SPORTS MEDIA GROUP DBA FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST,

upon information and belief, is a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at 1440

S. Sepulveda Blvd. , Los Angeles, CA 90025, and Defendant m ay be served with citation and

Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to

accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001

Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of

Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.

This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information

and belief, FOX SPORTS MEDIA GROUP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant FOX

ENTERTAINMENT.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 8 16. Defendant FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY, 10036. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa

Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP,

Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by §

17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with

Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, FOX ENTERTAINMENT is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC.

17. Defendant 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY, 10036. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa

Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP,

Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by §

17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with

Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, 21ST CENTURY FOX

AMERICA, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

FOX, INC.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 9 18. Defendant TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. DBA FOX SPORTS

SOUTHWEST, upon information and belief, is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s principal office is located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY, 10036. Defendant may be served with citation and Plaintiff’s Original Petition by and through its counsel, Vanessa

Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on its behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP,

Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. Defendant engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by §

17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with

Defendant’s business in Texas. Upon information and belief, TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

FOX, INC. is a publically traded corporation and parent company.

19. Defendant JON HEIDTKE (“Heidtke”) is an individual residing in the State of

Texas and may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross

Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Heidtke was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of Fox Sports.

20. Defendant MIKE ANASTASSIOU (“Anastassiou”) is an individual residing in the State of Texas and may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow

Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Anastassiou was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of Fox Sports.

21. Defendant JEFF KROLIK (“Krolik”) is an individual residing in the State of

California. Krolik may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 10 to accept service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center,

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit,

Krolik was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of Fox Sports. Krolik engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in

Texas.

22. Upon information and belief, defendant LOU D’ERMILIO (“D’Ermilio”) is an individual residing in New York. D’Ermilio may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa

Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP,

Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, D’Ermilio was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of

Fox Sports. D’Ermilio engaged in business in the State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with D’Ermilio’s business in Texas.

23. Defendant ERIC SHANKS (“Shanks”) is an individual residing in California.

Shanks may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross

Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Shanks was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of Fox Sports. Shanks engaged in business in the State of Texas, with in the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code, this lawsuit arises from and is connected with Shanks’ business in Texas.

24. Defendant RANDY FREER (“Freer”) is an individual residing in California.

Freer may be served by and through his counsel, Vanessa Griffith, who has agreed to accept

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 11 service on his behalf, at her office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross

Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Freer was an employee, acting as an agent and representative, of Fox Sports. Freer engaged in business in the

State of Texas, within the meaning of that term as defined by § 17.042, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code. This lawsuit arises from and is connected with Defendant’s business in Texas.

V. Agency

25. At the time of relevant events, all Defendants, including but not limited to general agents, subsidiaries, and all individuals employed by Fox Sports’ entities, in connection with the allegations set forth below, were acting as agents of Fox Sports. Defendants acted with the express or implied authority to engage in the acts complained of, and Fox Sports subsequently ratified the conduct complained of.

26. Defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the actions of the various subsidiaries and agents involved in the unlawful termination of Craig James.

VI. Jurisdiction and Venue

27. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this dispute. The amount in controversy is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum for this Court. All parties are amenable to process issuing from this court.

28. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice &

Remedies Code section 15.001(a)(1) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Dallas County, where Fox Sports Southwest is based.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 12 VII. Factual Background

Craig James enjoyed a long career in sports broadcasting with major national networks

29. Craig James began his career as a collegiate football player at Southern Methodist

University (“SMU”), where he and Eric Dickerson became known as the “Pony Express” for their success as running backs. From there, he played for the Washington Federals (of the

United States Football League) before playing five seasons for the New England Patriots, including Pro Bowl and Super Bowl appearances.

30. After retiring from the NFL, James began a long and notable career as a sportscaster. He worked in sportscasting from 1989 until 2012, when he took a break to run for

United States Senate. From 1991 until 2012, he worked as a national sportscaster.

31. James first became a radio analyst for SMU games, then a sports anchor for

KDFW-TV, and he began appearing on ESPN’s College GameDay and College Football

Scorecard with Lee Corso. In 1996, he joined CBS where he became an analyst on College

Football Today and the prestigious The NFL Today. James was nominated for an Emmy award as a college football studio analyst.

32. James covered everything from the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship to the

Olympics. In 2003, he moved to ABC and eventually began working on ESPN simultaneously.

33. For a total of 14 years, James worked as a highly-respected sportscaster for ESPN where he covered college football in particular. After a long run with ESPN, James departed to run for the recently-vacated United States Senate seat now occupied by Senator Ted Cruz.

34. By then, James enjoyed a successful position with every major national network except for Fox Sports, though Fox Sports had expressed interest in working with James over the years.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 13 Fox Sports recruits and hires Craig James

35. In 2013, James decided he would ease back into sports broadcasting. A mutual friend introduced James to the leadership of TexAgs.com (“TexAgs”), a popular Texas A&M

University sports internet platform, and TexAgs then asked him to do a College Preview segment for them to discuss major college football games each week. He agreed to appear on TexAgs.

36. Within 48 hours of that agreement, Heidtke, the General Manager of Fox Sports

Southwest (“FSSW”), contacted Craig James about appearing as a college sports analyst on

FSSW. Heidtke said he had heard from TexAgs that James was interested in covering college football.

37. Heidtke expressed excitement about James joining the FSSW college coverage.

38. On August 16, 2013, Heidtke brought James to the offices of FSSW where he met with the Executive Producer, Mike Anastassiou, and the parties visited at length. They discussed college sports, including Mike Leach,1 possible future shows, and other possibilities for working together in the future. They expressed excitement about working together.

1 In 2009, former Texas Tech Coach M ike Leach accused James of controversy relating to Leach’s treatment of football players including Jam es’ son, Adam , who had suffe red a concussion. Texas Tech investigated Adam ’s allegations and substantiated them ; Leach’s hostile res ponse to the investigation, ultim ately led t o Leach’s termination. Leach himself publicly blamed Tech’s intense contract negotiations for his termination: “Texas Tech’s decision to deal in lies and fabricate a story which led to my firing includes, but is not limited by, the animosity remaining from last year’s contract negotiations. I w ill not tolerate such retaliatory action. ” Joe Schad, Leach fired short of Tech’s bowl game, ESPN.com, (Dec. 31, 2009), available at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls09/news/story?id=4781981 (last visited July 28, 2015). The University announced Leach “continually refused to cooperate in a m eaningful way” with them, committed a “defiant act of insubordination,” and sued the University rather than obeying an order. The University named Leach’s lawsuit as its reason for terminating Leach. Id. Neither side identified Jam es or his son as the reason for the term ination of a troubled relationship. ESPN continued its relationship with Craig James, who remained as a college sports analyst for more than two more years, when he departed to run for the vacated United States Senate seat now occupied by Ted Cruz. Leach, by contrast, would not resume coaching again until the 2012 season, despite reportedly attempting to obtain a number of coaching positions and bringing a number of lega l actions regarding Texas Tech, all of which were summarily dismissed.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 14 39. That day, August 16, Fox Sports hired Craig James.

40. Shortly thereafter, Fox Sports leaked news of hiring Craig James to various sports blogs and sources.

41. On Friday, August 30, Fox Sports announced that James would be joining Fox

Sports, via a press release entitled “FOX SPORTS SOUTHWEST ADDS VETERAN

BROADCASTER CRAIG JAMES AS COLLEGE FOOTBALL STUDIO ANALYST”. The press release reads:

Veteran sports broadcaster and former SMU and NFL tailback Craig James has joined FOX Sports Southwest as a college football studio analyst, it was announced today by FOX Sports Southwest Senior Executive Producer Mike Anastassiou.

James will offer analysis on FOX Sports Southwest’s college football postgame shows this fall following primetime games on Saturdays. He’ll be paired with host Erin Hartigan and former NFL quarterback Tony Banks.

He’ll also appear on segments of FOX Sports Southwest’s BIG 12 LIVE wrap-up show.

“We’re excited to add Craig to the FOX Sports Southwest team,” Anastassiou said. “He’s a talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

James has an extensive sports broadcasting career that began in 1989 and has included stints as a college football studio analyst for CBS and ESPN. He also has worked as an NFL and college football game analyst for CBS, college football game analyst for ABC/ESPN, sports anchor at KDFW-TV in Dallas and radio analyst on SMU football games.

At SMU he teamed with Eric Dickerson to form the famed “Pony Express.” He played for the USFL’s Washington Federals from 1983-84 and the NFL's New England Patriots from 1984-88. He was the Patriots’ Rookie of the Year in 1984

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 15 and Most Valuable Player in 1985, in addition to being named the NFL's Offensive Player of the Year in 1985. James started in the 1986 Pro Bowl and in Super Bowl XX.

In addition to his role on the FOX COLLEGE FOOTBALL POSTGAME SHOW, James also will offer insight on segments of BIG 12 LIVE.

BIG 12 LIVE will air Saturdays at 11 p.m. CT and will feature highlights and commentary from the day’s Big 12 games.

Ric Renner hosts the one-hour show with College Football Hall of Famer and former New York Giants linebacker Gary Reasons and FoxSportsSouthwest.com correspondent Matt Mosley.

Exh. C (incorporated by reference) (emphasis added).

Fox Sports employs Craig James

42. Fox Sports is an “employer” and James is an “employee” as those terms are defined in the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Texas Labor Code section 21.001 et seq. At all times relevant to the employment cause of action, James was employed by Fox

Sports.

43. On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Craig James attended a Fox Sports Southwest rehearsal for his show on the coming Saturday, August 31. Fox Sports hired James to perform for 13 episodes of its postgame college sports show as well as to give analysis for Big 12 Live for each episode.

44.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 16

45. On Saturday, August 31, 2013, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, James appeared on Fox Sports Southwest and covered college sports. James received only positive feedback.

Fox Sports terminates Craig James

46. On Sunday, September 1, 2013, the following day, Fox Sports terminated Craig

James. Defendant Heidtke called James and informed him that Fox Sports terminated him, effective immediately.

47. James was informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that Fox Sports replaced him with a non-Christian employee who performs the duties that James performed before Fox Sports terminated him.

48. Under oath, Fox Sports executives admitted that James’ performance was irrelevant to his termination. Exh. D, p. 75-76 (Deposition of Fox Sports President Eric

Shanks).2 In fact, the same person who identified himself as a key decision maker testified that he was unaware of James’ performance on the job. Id.

2 After Fox Sports proclaimed it fired him for his beliefs , James consulted counsel who then sent a demand asking for James’ reinstatement and eventually filed a Rule 202 proceeding to invest igate potential claims against Defendants. Eventually, Fox Sports agreed to provide brief depositions of Fox Sports Southwest’s General Manager Jon Heidtke, who hired James, and Fox Sports’ President Eric Shanks. Per an agreement between the pa rties, Fox Sports also provided some documents – com munications relating to James’ termination, although James significan tly limited his requests, and even after receiving t he documents, James, per the parties’ agreem ent, made no further requests and took no further depositions. O nly two brief depositions were taken.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 17 49. James never discussed his beliefs about marriage or religion in general on the job.

50. Nevertheless, Fox Sports informed James that Fox Sports fired him due to his

beliefs about marriage, which were explicitly religious.

In an answer more than a year prior, James explained his religious beliefs about marriage, relying upon “God,” “the Lord” and the Bible while explaining his beliefs

51. Specifically, Fox Sports terminated James due to a short Christianity-focused

statement he made about marriage during a political debate when he ran for United States Senate.

(James ran for Senate more than eighteen months before he began working for Fox Sports.) Fox

Sports informed James that they terminated him for his statement, even though the statement—

and even the few news stories reporting it—explicitly expressed his religious beliefs, repeatedly

referring to his beliefs about “God,” “the Lord,” and “Christians” such as himself.

52. When James ran for United States Senate, then-attorney Ted Cruz and Tom

Leppert engaged in a debate about Leppert’s participation in a gay-pride parade. An audience

member then asked James about his stance on these things, including same-sex unions and

benefits, and James responded by citing his biblical beliefs. Some of the first words out of his

mouth were: “I’m a guy that believes in a man and a woman . . . Adam and Eve—and what the

Bible says.” Exh. E (transcript of comments on this issue during debate, incorporated by

reference). He explained that he did not support same-sex unions (even though he was

employing an openly-gay chief political consultant) because he believes that he, like everyone

else, is “going to have to answer to the Lord” for his or her shortcomings, and thus everyone,

including himself, falls short of the glory of God. 3 He concluded by emphasizing, a third time, that “as Christians we’ve got to stand up” regarding marriage.

3 For instance, rather than attack L eppert, who explicitly disagreed w ith him, James instead noted that he w as not calling into question Leppert’s Christianity (“I know you’re a Christian – I’m not doubting that, Tom”), but instead James called upon Leppert to “stand up” based upon Christian beliefs.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 18 53. As James explained, he believes marriage is between a man and a woman for biblical reasons, and the Bible – and Christianity – forms the basis of his beliefs on the issue. He repeatedly referenced his beliefs, and repeatedly called upon the audience to “stand up” “as

Christians.” The news reports that mentioned James’ statement referred to the religious nature of his beliefs, including the article Fox Sports executives discussed. Those are James’ longstanding and sincere religious beliefs, similar to beliefs held by millions of Christians nationwide.

54. Craig James is a man of faith and integrity, which calls him foremost to show love and kindness to all those around him, regardless of whether they share his beliefs. According to his faith, all people possess intrinsic value, and all people deserve love and respect—including the freedom not to be judged, penalized, or punished for their beliefs. James has personal friends, family members, and professional colleagues on both sides of marriage and family issues, some of whom are themselves gay, lesbian, and transgender. James respects others, including those who disagree with him, as he has throughout his career, and merely hopes for the same respect in turn.

55. Fox Sports circulated an article about James that stereotypes him based upon his

Christian beliefs. It assumes James must be motivated by antipathy, but James harbors goodwill towards all people, regardless of sexuality, and hopes that they will come to know the same love that he has, through Christ. See, e.g., 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (charging all those who have been changed through faith in Christ to take up the “ministry of reconciliation” between God and man). James may not approve of same-sex marriage, but he believes in showing love to each person no matter his or her circumstances.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 19 56. Craig James also believes he stands in no better stead to judge the world than anyone else.4 In all his conduct and affairs, James has treated people according to merit and background, from hiring a gay man for his chief political consultant to the way in which he treats individuals on a daily basis.

57. Furthermore, James supports a diverse and inclusive workplace and has even created such a workplace. He forges business relationships across political, racial, sexual, and religious lines. He has worked in a variety of diverse workplaces for decades. He is happy to work with anyone. Moreover, James appreciates the variety of opinions and perspectives that a diverse workplace and diverse world bring. To insinuate otherwise is an attack on James’ character and his beliefs, based upon stereotypes about religious persons.

58. Nonetheless, Fox Sports informed James that his short off-the-cuff statement about his beliefs regarding marriage more than a year before was the sole reason Fox Sports terminated him.

Unbeknownst to James,

59.

4 As James stated in the com ment at issue: God is going to “judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” (emphasis added) Exh. E, which is a statement of equality, applicable to all men, and a longstanding Biblical belief. See, e.g., Romans 2:6, Eccl. 12:14, 1 Cor. 4:5, 2 Tim. 4:1 (ESV).

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 20 Fox Sports then

60.

61.

62.

Fox Sports publicly announces James’ termination

63. Within 48 hours, Fox Sports publicly terminated Craig James for his religious beliefs. Within a week, they would announce their reason to the world.

64. After informing James they terminated him,

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 21

65.

Answering speculation, Fox Sports lambasts James for his beliefs and confirms that Fox Sports fired him for his beliefs

66. At the time it fired him, Fox Sports made no public statement about the reason for

terminating James. Instead, Fox Sports issued a comment that James would not be working with

them again. In light of speculation, on or about September 6, 2013, Dallas Morning News

Reporter Barry Horn asked Fox Sports executives whether Fox Sports terminated James for his

beliefs about marriage. Even though most companies rarely comment on personnel matters, Fox

Sports’ Senior Vice President of Communications responded to the question: “‘ We just asked

ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,’ said a

Fox spokesman. ‘He couldn’t say those things here.’” Exh. J (SportsDay article by Barry

Horn, incorporated by reference).6

Despite multiple requests, Fox Sports refuse s to retract or clarify this statem ent. See, e.g., Exh. K (retraction and correction requests). Despite the written evidence and public statements, Fox Sports’ President Eric Shanks alleged, in a deposition, that this statem ent was “false,” how ever, Shanks and Fox Sports still issued no retraction or correction to this statem ent. Lou D’Ermilio, identified by Fox Sports as the source of the statem ent, has likewise issued no retraction or correction despite receiving the same requests to do so.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 22 67. Horn then reported, as the headline, that James’ “stance during political campaign reason for his quick exit from FOX Sports SW[.]” Based upon that statement, Horn reported that

Fox Sports terminated James over “Washington” politics, specifically, James’ beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

James suffers irreparable damage

68. Barry Horn’s article appeared in the Dallas Morning News and was then widely circulated, along with Fox Sports’ comments, among news sources nationwide. It appeared in articles all over the sports and political world, from coast to coast. Many publications berated

James for his religious views—while praising Fox Sports for terminating anyone who held such beliefs. In particular, publications gave Fox Sports praise for firing someone with James’ religious beliefs in New York and Los Angeles, where Fox Sports’ executives are based.

69. The public had already learned James’ religious views on marriage; they had been reported in the same article sent to Fox Sports’ executives and reported in a few news pieces at the time. Before Fox Sports’ actions, however, James received inquiries and interest regarding college sports opportunities. As a direct and proximate result of Fox Sports’ actions, James found that even longtime associates suddenly refused to return a simple phone call. Random strangers began harassing James at public events and following him, to the point where, for the first time in his life, he required a personal security escort. He feared for the security of himself and especially his family. Business associates began questioning him about whether he was fit to do business with, referring to Fox Sports’ actions. Business opportunities evaporated. James lost friends, business relationships, and numerous business opportunities as a result of Fox

Sports’ actions.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 23 70. In addition, James was shocked and offended that his beliefs about marriage

would lead Fox Sports executives to treat him badly and even publicly smear him, since he treats

others well regardless of their personal beliefs, and his beliefs call him to love others. James was

disappointed that Fox Sports would stereotype Christians and treat him the same way it might

treat the few individuals in America who bear ill will towards others on the basis of religion or

sexuality.

71. His own agent told him that Fox Sports made him unhirable through its actions.

Since then, James sought but has been unable to find a single position in televised sports

broadcasting at any level, let alone a level comparable to the numerous positions he has held

throughout his career.7

Fox Sports remains in breach of its contract with James

72. Fox Sports admits that it believes James should be paid for the work he performed, yet he remains unpaid, even though Fox Sports has known this and known the term of the parties’ agreement for years after the work was performed.

73.

74. James performed the first appearance, as agreed, and regarding that appearance,

Fox Sports’ President Eric Shanks testified, “I thought it was the fair thing to do to try to get him

7 Due to Fox Sports’ actions, the only type of broadcasti ng welcoming James is religious broadcasting relating to marriage and family issues. In order to provide for his family (and mitigate his ongoing damages), James eventually accepted a position with a conservative family-oriented group where he interviews people and covers news on topics related to marriage and family issues . Prior to Fox Sports’ statement, Jame s’ only reported public statement about such things was the same minute-and-a-half response to a question that Fox Sports says it terminated him for. Since Fox Sports’ statem ent, James has sought new opportunities but found no further television broadcasting opportunities available in sportscasting. H e has instead recently partnered to begin a sports podcast, and although he is hopeful about it, it is incomparable to many of his past opportunities.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 24 paid.” Exh. D, p. 114-15; Exh. B (contract documents). However, Shanks also testified that he

had not confirmed that James had been paid for more than six months prior to his testimony.

According to his own testimony, Shanks learned before his deposition the “current status,” i.e.,

that Fox Sports never paid James for the work he performed. (“I guess I thought he had been

paid. I didn’t find out until yesterday what the current status was.” Exh. D, p. 114-15.) Shanks

and Fox Sports’ counsel learned that James had not been paid for his appearance, and another

seventeen months would expire after Shanks’ testimony while the Texas Workforce Commission

handled James’ employment discrimination complaint, but still, as of the filing of this petition,

Fox Sports still has not paid James. Fox Sports knows James is owed, admits he is owed, yet has

refused to pay him for almost two years now.

VIII. Conditions Precedent

75. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

IX. First Cause of Action Violation of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Fox Sports discriminated against James when using his religious beliefs as a “motivating factor”

76. James incorporates paragraphs one (1) through seventy-five (75) as though they are fully set forth herein.

77. Defendants discriminated against James because of his religion in violation of the

Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.125.

78. A motivating factor in Fox Sports terminating James was his expression of sincerely held religious beliefs prior to his hiring by Fox Sports.

79. When James asked, Defendants identified one—and only one—reason for terminating James: his beliefs about marriage, which are explicitly religious in nature.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 25 80.

81. After the termination, Fox Sports announced to the national media that they

terminated James for his religious beliefs. A “Fox spokesman” answered questions about James’

sudden departure and, referring to his religious beliefs about marriage, told the national press:

“He couldn’t say those things here.” Exh. J (Horn article).

82. James demanded reinstatement and a retraction. To date, Fox Sports has done

neither: specifically, for almost two years now, Fox Sports refuses to make a retraction of its

initial statement about James.

83. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ religious discrimination and

James’ wrongful termination, James incurred and is continuing to incur substantial damages.

Accordingly, James seeks recovery of the full measure of relief and damages, including

compensatory and punitive damages, provided by the Texas Commission on Human Rights. See

Texas Labor Code, sections 21.258, 21.2585, and 21.259. James requests that the Court enjoin

Defendants from any further unlawful, religious-based discrimination and order Defendants to

make James whole by reinstatement, payment of back pay, interest on back pay, court costs and

reasonable attorney’s fees. See Texas Labor Code, sections 21.258, 21.2585, and 21.259.

Moreover, James seeks recovery of damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses, and punitive damages. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.2585.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 26 X. Second Cause of Action Violation of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Discrimination

84. James incorporates paragraphs one (1) through eighty-three (83) as though they are fully set forth herein.

85. Defendants intentionally discriminated against James because of his religion in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section

21.001 et seq.

86. Defendants committed unlawful employment practices against James because of his religion in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.001 et seq.

87. Defendants discriminated against James because of his religion in connection with the terms, conditions and privileges of employment in violation of the Texas Commission on

Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.051.

88. Defendants discharged James due to his religious beliefs in violation of the Texas

Commission on Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.051.

89. Defendants discriminated against James on the basis of religion because of or on the basis of James’ religious observance, practice or belief in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. See Texas Labor Code, section 21.108.

90. Defendants were motivated by James’ religious beliefs.

91. When James asked, Defendants identified one—and only one—reason for terminating James: his beliefs about marriage, which are explicitly religious in nature.

92.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 27

93. After the termination, Fox Sports announced to the national media that they terminated James for his religious beliefs. A “Fox spokesman” answered questions about James’ sudden departure and, referring to his religious beliefs about marriage, told the national press:

“He couldn’t say those things here.” Exh. J (Horn article).

94. James demanded reinstatement and a retraction. To date, Fox Sports has done neither: specifically, for almost two years now, Fox Sports refuses to make a retraction of its initial statement about James.

95. Defendants have no legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their treatment of

James.

96. A motivating factor in Fox Sports terminating James was his expression of sincerely held religious beliefs prior to his hiring by Fox Sports.

97. James has sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage and Fox Sports terminated James because of those beliefs.

98. Defendants were able to reasonably accommodate James’ religious observance or practice without undue hardship to the conduct of Defendants’ business, but refused to do so.

99. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ religious discrimination and

James’ wrongful termination, James incurred and is continuing to incur substantial damages.

Accordingly, James seeks recovery of the full measure of relief and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, provided by the Texas Commission on Human Rights. See

Texas Labor Code, sections 21.258, 21.2585, and 21.259. James requests that the Court enjoin

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 28 Defendants from any further unlawful, religious-based discrimination and order Defendants to

make James whole by reinstatement, payment of back pay, interest on back pay, court costs and

reasonable attorney’s fees. See Texas Labor Code, sections 21.258, 21.2585, and 21.259.

XI. Third Cause of Action Breach of Contract

100. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through ninety-nine (99) as though they are fully set forth herein.

101. To date, Fox Sports has never paid Mr. James for his services,

James began performance of the contract, yet Fox Sports refused further performance and refused payment even for the services already provided. As a result of Fox Sports’ breach of the contract, James has been wrongfully prevented from completing performance of the contract.

102. Fox Sports was made aware of this, repeatedly, and, more than a year ago, Fox

Sports’ president testified that James remained unpaid for the services he provided in 2013, even though Shanks allegedly believed James should be paid. Exh. D, p. 114-15. Yet today, almost two full years after he appeared, Fox Sports still has not paid James for his appearance.

103. James brings this action to recover against defendants for the full contract price minus the cost he would have incurred in completing the contract if defendants had not prevented performance, as well as other contract-related damages, such as consequential damages.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 29 104. Fox Sports had an employment contact with James for James to serve as an on-air

college football analyst.

105. Fox Sports breached its contract with James.

106. As a result of Fox Sports breaching the contract, James suffered damages,

including damages for breach of contract including but not limited to consequential damages.

XII. Administrative Prerequisites

107. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through one hundred six (106) as though they are fully set forth herein.

108. On February 25, 2014, James filed a complaint of religious discrimination and retaliation with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (“Commission”)

(attached as Exhibit L and incorporated by reference). As part of the Commission’s process, the

Commission issued a charge and the parties participated in mediation. On June 5, 2015, James received a notice of the right to file a civil action from the Commission (attached as Exhibit M and incorporated by reference). James brought this action within 60 days of receiving the notice of the right to file a civil action. James has exhausted all administrative prerequisites to bringing this action.

XIII. Declaratory Judgment

109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through one hundred eight (108) as

though they are fully set forth herein.

110. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.001 et seq. and Tex. Labor Code §

21.001 et seq. James seeks a declaration from the Court that the conduct and actions of

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 30 Defendants as described herein violate his rights and state law, and also constitute a breach of the parties’ contract.

XIV. Damages

111. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through one hundred ten (110) as though they are fully set forth herein.

112. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, James has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of lost back wages, lost future wages/front pay, loss of expected bargain, direct damages, consequential damages, incidental damages incurred as a result of defendants’ breach of contract, compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non- pecuniary losses.

XV. Exemplary damages

113. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through one hundred twelve (112) as though they are fully set forth herein.

114. James is entitled to punitive damages from Fox Sports because Fox Sports acted with the malice required to support an award of exemplary damages. Fox Sports acted with a specific intent to cause injury to James as well as with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of James with actual awareness that its conduct involved an extreme degree of risk of harm to James. In particular, Fox Sports knew its actions would harm James, and it knew it should pay James, but it still refused to either take proper actions or ameliorate its wrongful actions.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 31 115. James is also entitled to punitive damages from Fox Sports because each

individual named in this action were principals and employed in a managerial capacity for Fox

Sports and/or Fox Sports Southwest, and, in doing the acts described in this petition, they were

acting within the scope of their respective employment. Furthermore, Fox Sports executives,

including President Eric Shanks, ratified Shanks’ actions as well as those of other individuals

named in this action, such as Defendants Heidkte and Krolik, who, among other things, still

knowingly refuse to pay James almost two years later.

116. Additionally, defendants engaged in religious discrimination with malice or

reckless indifference to James’ rights. Defendants even announced they had done so publicly,

and have stood by that statement since its publication.

117. Defendants failed to reinstate James despite a request. Defendants also failed to

issue any retraction or correction to their public claim that they fired him for his beliefs, despite

requests to do so, and James is thus entitled to exemplary damages.

XVI. Attorneys’ Fees

118. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through one hundred seventeen (117) as though they are fully set forth herein.

119. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees against Defendant pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas, including but not limited to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§

37.001 et seq., 38.001 et seq., and Tex. Labor Code §§ 21.125, 21.259.

120. James is entitled to recover from the defendants all pay-services in the preparation and prosecution of this action as well as a reasonable fee for any and all appeals to other courts.

121. Additionally, fees are due for breach of contract, services rendered, and labor performed. On July 31, 2015, after several prior demands for reinstatement and payment, James

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 32 specifically demanded payment for those items, even though such demand had been made

previously in demands for mitigation and damages. Defendants and their counsel were also

made aware at the deposition of Eric Shanks, and acknowledged in the transcript, their failure to

pay James for services rendered, labor performed, and breach of contract. Exh. D, p. 114-15.

122. At the time of filing this petition, Fox Sports has refused the request. As a result

of Defendants’ repeated refusals regarding payment, James has been required to obtain legal

counsel to bring this action. James is therefore entitled to recover an additional sum to

compensate him as a reasonable attorneys’ fee; in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court,

James would be entitled to an additional appellate attorneys’ fee.

XVII. Jury Trial

123. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury and tenders the

appropriate fees with this Petition.

XVIII. Request for Disclosure

124. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant

disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in

Rule 194.2.

XIX. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests and prays that the Court grant the following relief:

1. Judgment against Defendants for back wages, plus interest at the legal rate from

the date of James’ termination, September 1, 2013, until the date of judgment in

an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 33 2. Judgment against Defendants for the present value of front pay due to the plaintiff

for the period following the date of the judgment, calculated as of the date of the

judgment.

3. Judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, including consequential

damages.

4. An award of punitive and/or exemplary damages against Defendants in a sum

determined by the trier of fact.

5. Interest after judgment at the legal rate until paid.

6. A declaration that the conduct and actions of Defendants as described herein

violate Plaintiff’s rights and state law.

7. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor

Code and Chapters 37 and 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

8. Any other and further relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey C. Mateer KELLY J. SHACKELFORD Texas Bar No. 18070950 Email: [email protected] JEFFREY C. MATEER Texas Bar No. 13185320 Email: [email protected] HIRAM S. SASSER, III State Bar No. 24039157 Email: [email protected] CLEVE W. DOTY State Bar No. 24069627 Email: [email protected] LIBERTY INSTITUTE 2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Suite 1600 Plano, Texas 75075 Telephone: (972) 941-4444 Fax: (972) 941-4457

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 34

CLYDE M. SIEBMAN, ESQ. Texas Bar No. 18341600 SIEBAN, BURG, PHILLIPS AND SMITH, L.L.P. Federal Courthouse Square 300 North Travis Street Sherman, Texas 75090 Telephone: (903) 870–0060 Fax: (903) 870–0066 Email: [email protected]

JAMES T. DRAKELEY Texas Bar No. 06111600 HIERSCHE, HAYWARD, DRAKELEY & URBACH, P.C. 15303 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 700 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone: (972) 701-7000 Fax: (972) 701-8765 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 35

[Exhibit Redacted]

In Re: Petition of Craig James 1/14/2014 David Eric Shanks

2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3

4 For Craig James:

5 CLYDE M. SIEBMAN, ESQ. SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH 6 300 North Travis Street Sherman, Texas 75090 7 (903) 870-0070 [email protected] 8 and 9 HIRAM SASSER, ESQ. 10 LIBERTY INSTITUTE 2001 Plano Parkway 11 Suite 1600 Plano, Texas 75075 12 (972) 941-4444 [email protected] 13 For David Eric Shanks: 14 VANESSA GRIFFITH, ESQ. 15 VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2001 Ross Avenue 16 Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201 17 (214) 220-7713 [email protected] 18 For Fox Group: 19 MYKHANH SHELTON, ESQ. 20 FOX GROUP LEGAL 2121 Avenue of the Stars 21 Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067 22 (310) 369-2912 23

24 Also Present: Jesse Glen, videographer 25

ALPHA DEPO (888) 667-DEPO In Re: Petition of Craig James 1/14/2014 David Eric Shanks

5 1 (Los Angeles, California; Monday, January 14, 2014, 2 9:13 a.m.) 3 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name is 5 Jesse Glen. I'm a videographer associated with Alpha 6 Depo. 7 The date is January 14th, and the time is 8 9:13 a.m. This deposition is taking place at Fox Plaza, 9 seventh floor, at 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles,

09:13 10 California 90067. 11 The cause name is In re: Petition of Craig 12 James. Cause number is 417039152013. And this is the 13 videotaped deposition of Eric Shanks taken on behalf of 14 Craig James. 15 Will all counsel present please identify 16 themselves for the record. 17 MR. SIEBMAN: Clyde Siebman, representing Craig 18 James. 19 MR. SASSER: Hiram Sasser, representing Craig

09:14 20 James. 21 MS. GRIFFITH: Vanessa Griffith, representing 22 Eric Shanks. 23 MS. SHELTON: Mykhanh Shelton on behalf of Fox. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you very much. 25 The court reporter may now swear in the

ALPHA DEPO (888) 667-DEPO In Re: Petition of Craig James 1/14/2014 David Eric Shanks

6 1 witness. 2 DEPOSITION OFFICER: Raise your right hand, 3 please. 4 You do solemnly state that the evidence you 5 shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole 6 truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 7 THE WITNESS: I do. 8 DEPOSITION OFFICER: Thank you. 9

09:14 10 EXAMINATION 11 12 BY MR. SIEBMAN: 13 Q. Mr. Shanks, would you state your full name for 14 the record, please. 15 A. My name is David Eric Shanks. 16 Q. What is your job title? 17 A. My job title is president of Fox Sports. 18 Q. What are your responsibilities in your role as 19 president of Fox Sports?

09:14 20 A. As president, there is wide ranging roles. I 21 oversee the business. 22 Q. Would you be considered the chief executive 23 officer? 24 A. I don't believe so. 25 Q. Okay. Who would be the chief executive officer

ALPHA DEPO (888) 667-DEPO In Re: Petition of Craig James 1/14/2014 David Eric Shanks

7 1 of Fox Sports? 2 A. I don't believe we have one. 3 Q. Okay. Who is at the top of the hierarchy of 4 all management at Fox Sports? 5 A. I think that's a difficult question since I do 6 have -- I have a number of bosses. 7 Q. And who are your bosses? 8 A. Let's see. I have a boss named Peter Rice, who 9 runs the Fox Networks Group.

09:15 10 Q. Is he an employee of Fox Sports? 11 A. From a legal entity, I -- I don't -- I don't 12 know the -- the employment structure. 13 Q. Okay. Who else would you consider to be a boss 14 of yours? 15 A. Well, the other people that are higher than me 16 in the entire 21st Century Fox business are a gentleman 17 by the name of Chase Carey, a gentleman by the name of 18 James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch. 19 Q. Anyone else?

09:16 20 A. I can't think of any. 21 Q. So other than Mr. Rice, Mr. Carey, and 22 Mr. Murdoch, you have no other supervisors at Fox 23 Sports? 24 A. I can't say so, no. 25 Q. What do you mean you can't say so, no?

ALPHA DEPO (888) 667-DEPO

[Exhibit Redacted]

EXHIBIT K

EXHIBIT L

February 25, 2014

Texas Workforce Commission 101 East 15th Street, #144T Austin, Texas 78778-0001

Re: Fox Sports’ unlawful termination of Craig James based upon Mr. James’ religious beliefs.

Dear Texas Workforce Commission:

To facilitate the Commission’s evaluation, Mr. James is transmitting a variety of supporting material and this brief explanation.

FOX Sports Southwest, FOX Sports Media Group, FOX Sports, FOX Networks Group, Fox Entertaining Group, Inc., FOX Broadcasting Company, FOX Sports Net, and Twenty-first Century Fox, Inc., (collectively “Fox Sports” or “Fox”) engaged in religious discrimination in violation of Texas Labor Code §§ 21.051 et seq. against Craig James in two ways.

First, Fox Sports engaged in religious discrimination through disparate treatment. Craig James is a person of the Christian faith and state law protects him from discrimination. Craig James was qualified for the position as college football broadcaster. Fox Sports took an adverse employment action against Craig James by firing him because of his religious beliefs and his exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs. Craig James was treated less favorably than another employee who was rehired even though he had caused public embarrassment to Fox Sports by being convicted in multiple embarrassing drunk-driving incidents, including an accident.

Second, Fox Sports engaged in direct religious discrimination against Craig James. Fox Sports announced that not only were they firing Craig James because of his sincerely held religious beliefs by telling the public his religious beliefs about marriage, but also that Fox Sports would not hire or allow anyone to work at Fox Sports who holds religious beliefs similar to Craig James. Mr. James was also personally informed that his religious beliefs were the reason for his termination.

Mr. James has worked in the sports and broadcast industry for thirty years. During that time, Mr. James has always maintained a professional demeanor on the air and in the course of his employment, and he had an impeccable record as a fair and open- minded person regarding social issues both on and off the air. Mr. James has always lived with the goal of measuring folks according to merit and not their beliefs or background. That is why Mr. James hired the very best campaign consultant/advisor he

" #!#! $#$

February 25, 2014 Page could find for his run for United States Senate in Texas, a man who happens to be openly gay.

Mr. James is a man of faith and integrity, which calls him foremost to show love and kindness to all those around him, regardless of whether they share his beliefs. According to his faith, all people have intrinsic value, and all people deserve love and respect—above all, the freedom not to be judged, penalized, or punished for their beliefs. Mr. James’ faith that calls upon him to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and he said as much during his campaign for U.S. Senate. He has always been upfront and open about his faith and his deeply caring attitude towards those with whom he works and others with whom he comes in contact. He has been very honest about who he is as a person throughout his life, including when the public wanted to know more about him and his faith as he ran for the U.S. Senate. Mr. James believes very strongly in equal opportunity employment, not passing judgment on others, and having tolerance and respect for the diversity of the broadcast world and this nation as a whole.

Craig James did not seek out employment with Fox Sports Southwest (“FSSW”); rather, FSSW sought Mr. James. Mr. James’ beliefs about marriage are not part of sports or sports broadcasting, and Mr. James was not terminated for discussing his personal faith on the air or in his employment capacity.

Eric Shanks, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Fox Sports, testified that Mr. James was not fired based at all upon his performance. (Two Fox Sports executives were deposed as part of a Rule 202 proceeding Mr. James initiated.) Instead, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. James was terminated—as was widely reported—for his religious beliefs.

Factual Background

FSSW general manager Jon Heidtke sought out Craig James for an on-air position at FSSW and then hired James to serve as an on-air college football analyst for Fox Sports Southwest’s postgame show, FOX College Saturday, following primetime college football games on Saturdays as well as for segments of FSSW’s Big 12 Live wrap-up show. FSSW’s Senior Executive Producer Mike Anastassiou announced FSSW’s hiring of Craig James on Friday, August 30, 2013, stating, “We’re excited to add Craig to the Fox Sports Southwest team. He’s a talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

The following evening, Saturday, August 31, Craig James made his first and what would become his only appearance on FSSW. During this appearance, Craig James provided analysis and insight on a college football game. Mr. James did not discuss his religious beliefs or his U.S. Senate campaign during the telecast.

February 25, 2014 Page

On Monday, September 2, Fox Sports announced that it was terminating Craig James because of his religious beliefs. Referencing comments that Craig James made regarding his religious beliefs during his Senate campaign, a Fox spokesperson said, “We just asked how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Fox Sports likewise communicated to Mr. James that he had been fired due to his beliefs about marriage.

Craig James believes that he, as a Christian, is called to love everyone regardless of his or her sexual orientation. He simply wants to receive the same tolerance for his religious beliefs that he himself practices towards others.

Legal Action

As a result of Fox’s actions towards Mr. James, Liberty Institute sent Fox Sports a demand letter on September 24, 2013, requesting that Mr. James be reinstated as a college football analyst and noting that Liberty Institute intended to pursue pre-suit depositions if necessary.

Fox Sports refused to reinstate Mr. James, so Liberty Institute instituted a Rule 202 proceeding against Fox Sports to investigate potential claims. The parties agreed that Liberty Institute would be allowed to depose Eric Shanks, President and Chief Operating Officer of Fox Sports, and Jon Heidtke, General Manager of FSSW. The last of those depositions, Jon Heidtke’s, happened on February 17, 2014.

In those depositions, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Fox Sports now claims, for the first time, that Fox’s statements to the media and to Mr. James about his termination were in fact false. However, as emails produced by Fox demonstrate, Mr. James’ termination was directly caused by his beliefs about marriage. Moreover, in almost six months since his termination, no one at Fox Sports has publicly repudiated the reports that Mr. James was terminated on the basis of his religious beliefs about marriage, or said that its statements to that effect were false. No attempt was made to correct the nationally reported fact that Mr. James was fired because of his views on marriage expressed during his Senate campaign.

Furthermore, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Fox Sports testified that Mr. James was the only person that he had ever intervened at a regional network in order to terminate.

February 25, 2014 Page

As a result of the substantial confirmatory information obtained during the Rule 202 proceeding, Mr. James decided to file this complaint. In support of his complaint, Mr. James is attaching all information obtained during the Rule 202 process. In particular, we are transmitting the following:

• The demand letter Liberty Institute sent to Fox Sports on September 24, 2013. • A portion of the deposition transcript and non-confidential exhibits from the depositions of Eric Shanks (along with certain other informative documents). We also have video files of the depositions that are informative; however, EEO Intake advised that they do not have capacity to accept and further, would not need video files at this stage. We believe these files would assist any investigation and are happy to transmit them. • All the non-confidential documents produced by Fox Sports in response to Mr. James’ Rule 202 proceeding. • The protective order from the Rule 202 proceeding governing use of confidential information disclosed in the Rule 202 proceeding. •

In addition to the material above, Liberty Institute possesses and can transmit to the Texas Workforce Commission the confidential documents produced by Fox Sports as well as the full transcripts and videos from the depositions of Eric Shanks and Jon Heidtke. No reference has been made to the confidential portions of those materials herein, even though the confidential materials further support Mr. James’ complaint. If you have any questions about this material or Mr. James’ complaint, please contact me at (972) 941-4444; I am happy to provide more detailed information in order to assist your investigation.

February 25, 2014 Page !

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey C. Mateer General Counsel

Counsel for Craig James cc: Craig James Clyde Siebman Charles Bundren

EXHIBIT M