IBJNews

Emmis mag sues New York Times over editor hire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Texas Monthly, the award-winning magazine owned by Indianapolis-based Emmis Communications Corp., has sued the New York Times Co. for as much as $1 million over the hiring of its top editor to join the newspaper’s magazine division before his contract expired.

The Emmis affiliate that owns the magazine said it contacted Dean Baquet, the Times’ managing editor, upon learning the newspaper was having job discussions with Jake Silverstein, Texas Monthly’s editor-in-chief, according to a copy of a lawsuit filed Friday in state court in Austin, Texas.

Ian Arnold, Emmis’s general counsel, told Baquet that “Texas Monthly expected to be compensated” for the cost of finding a replacement editor if Silverstein was hired away before his contract expires in February 2015, according to the filing.

“Despite Baquet’s assurances,” the Times didn’t notify Texas Monthly of the job offer, and the magazine learned of the hiring from Silverstein shortly before the newspaper publicly announced it on March 28, according to the lawsuit.

Texas Monthly seeks between $200,000 and $1 million in damages “resulting from the Times’s tortious actions” in inducing Silverstein to break his employment contract. Silverstein, who will start as editor of the paper’s Sunday magazine in May, isn’t personally sued in the complaint.

“We had an understanding with Emmis during the search that Jake would be permitted to exit his contract with Emmis and take the job,” said Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the New York Times, in an e-mail. “We believe there is no basis for a lawsuit.”

Silverstein declined to comment on the lawsuit. Kate Snedeker, an Emmis spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the six years Silverstein has served as Texas Monthly’s top editor, the Austin-based magazine has been nominated for 11 National Magazine Awards, and won four for general excellence, feature writing and public interest.

The magazine has a paid circulation of 300,000, according to its website.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT