Case Background
Ojinika Obiekwe, a Nigerian-born journalist, worked at WPIX-TV Channel 11 for more than two decades. She began as an intern and, according to the Complaint, later held several production positions before becoming an Entertainment Anchor/Reporter.
Obiekwe alleged that WPIX treated her differently from white male counterparts at sister stations. She claimed those colleagues received greater staffing support while handling fewer responsibilities.
According to the Complaint, she began openly complaining about her workplace conditions in 2020. She alleged that she later raised her concerns with Nexstar and WPIX human resources personnel.
The dispute eventually focused on Obiekwe's January 2023 termination. Obiekwe alleged that WPIX first cited poor performance and insubordination, then recast her termination as a contract non-renewal. The Defendants stated that WPIX told her on January 31, 2023, that it had cause to terminate her. They said WPIX chose to treat the separation as a non-renewal.
Obiekwe filed the federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserted a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and demanded a jury trial.
Cause
Obiekwe alleged that she experienced race and gender discrimination at WPIX. She claimed the station assigned her support duties handled by staff for white male anchors at other Nexstar stations.
She alleged that she repeatedly complained about this treatment. Her complaints included concerns about workload, staffing support, and the treatment of Black women in the workplace.
According to the complaint, Obiekwe continued raising these concerns after WPIX investigated them. She alleged that the company failed to resolve the issues.
She claimed that WPIX then began criticizing her job performance. She alleged that the company used those criticisms as a pretext for retaliating against her protected complaints.
Injury
Obiekwe alleged that the Defendants' conduct caused financial and emotional harm. She claimed that her termination ended more than two decades of employment at WPIX. The complaint stated that Obiekwe suffered damages as a result of the alleged retaliation.
Damages
Obiekwe sought compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. She also requested punitive damages. The complaint further sought attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. Obiekwe additionally requested prejudgment interest. She asked the Court to grant any other relief it deemed just and proper.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Ojinika Obiekwe
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andrew G. Celli, Jr. | Eric Abrams
Defendant(s): WPIX-TV Channel 11 | Nexstar Media Group, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Edward Cerasia II | Alison L. Tomasco | Deidre Ann Grossman
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The parties disputed why WPIX ended Obiekwe's employment. Obiekwe alleged that the stated performance reasons were pretextual and followed her complaints about discrimination.
The Defendants maintained that the employment decision resulted from performance problems. They stated that management had counseled Obiekwe for months about her performance and reporting responsibilities.
Claims
Obiekwe asserted retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She alleged that she engaged in protected activity by complaining about discriminatory treatment based on race and gender.
She alleged that WPIX knew about her complaints through human resources and management personnel. She further alleged that the company terminated her because of those complaints.
The complaint sought to establish a causal connection between her protected activity and the termination. It relied, in part, on the timing between her complaints and the adverse employment action.
Defense
WPIX and Nexstar denied the retaliation allegations. The Defendants argued that the employment decision had nothing to do with Obiekwe's race or protected activity.
The Defendants maintained that Obiekwe's employment ended because of performance concerns. They stated that management had repeatedly counseled her about performing her Entertainment Reporter responsibilities.
They also disputed Obiekwe's comparison with two white male anchors, Sam Rubin of KTLA and Dean Richards of WGN. The Defendants argued that those employees worked at different stations, in different markets, and under different management. The Defendants stated that Obiekwe first complained about Rubin's and Richards' pay in or about 2019.
The Defendants further argued that Obiekwe's workplace comments comparing her work to slavery offended some coworkers. They contended that those comments did not constitute protected activity.
The answer asserted several affirmative defenses. These included legitimate non-retaliatory reasons, good faith, and failure to mitigate damages. They also included lack of causation for emotional distress and a same-decision defense.
The Defendants also argued that punitive damages were barred, in whole or in part. They cited good faith and anti-retaliation policies.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a verdict finding for Obiekwe on the central retaliation question. The verdict form asked whether Obiekwe proved her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. It asked whether WPIX would not have terminated her employment were it not for her complaints of race discrimination. The question covered complaints she made before her termination. The jury answered "Yes."
The jury also found Obiekwe entitled to compensatory damages for pain, suffering, or emotional distress resulting from the retaliatory termination. It awarded $1,137,000.
The jury further found that WPIX should be subject to punitive damages. It awarded $1,280,000 in punitive damages.
The combined jury award was $2,417,000. The verdict form was filed in the Southern District of New York on July 21, 2026.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
