The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Brian Beneker v. CBS Studios, Inc. et al
Overview
Plaintiff, a freelance writer and white, heterosexual man, sued CBS and parent Paramount Global for “blatant” discrimination arguing that he was denied a staff writer position on the “SEAL series” and other lucrative employment opportunities due to the company's diversity goals.
Details
Plaintiff claims that the positions went to to less qualified women, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ writers and that the company had imposed stringent diversity rules, including a goal for the writers’ rooms to consist of 50% Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) writers in the 2022-23 season.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they have a First Amendment (free speech) right to create the artistic content they choose and to select the writers who will create that content. They also argue that, even if their free speech arguments are not enough to dismiss the case, Plaintiff did not pursue some of the allegations in a timely manner. Additionally, they assert that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how being denied certain positions was due to race.
On August 14, 2024, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that at that (early) stage in the case, the Plaintiff had a raise enough facts to support his claims.
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Status
Filed February 29, 2024 | Settled
On April 18, 2025 both parties settled and the court dismissed the case. The details of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.
Significance
This case may help to clarify the extent to which free speech arguments are a viable defense against challenges to diversity initiatives. It may also give insight into whether discrimination plaintiffs can rely on broad diversity targets as indirect evidence of discrimination.