On October 15, 2019 – now some 1,889 days ago, more than five years – a lawsuit was brought in Monroe County, NY against the Rochester, NY Democrat & Chronicle newspaper, and its publisher and owner, Gannett.
The Plaintiff in that lawsuit claimed a Gannett management employee, Jack Lazeroff, sexually abused him when he worked as an 11 and 12-year-old paperboy in 1982 and 1983 in Brighton, NY, a Rochester suburb.
The lawsuit followed recently-enacted legislation in New York State – the Child Victims Act – extending the statute of limitations for adult victims of child sex abuse to press criminal charges against their abusers and to seek civil damages from institutions that enabled the abuse.
Days prior to filing his lawsuit, the initial Plaintiff met with Detective Investigators of the Brighton, NY police department and filed a police report detailing the abuse. A copy of that police report is available here.
In addition, almost a year prior to filing his lawsuit, in September 2018 – notably, before New York State enacted its Child Victims Act (CVA) in February 2019 – the initial Plaintiff had first approached the Democrat & Chronicle with his abuse claims. In response:
-
Karen Magnuson, former Democrat & Chronicle Executive Editor, told her investigative reporter whom the Plaintiff had first contacted, to put his investigating and reporting of those claims against Gannett and its Democrat & Chronicle newspaper on “pause”.
-
Magnuson then brought the Plaintiff’s initial email to the attention of Gannett’s human resources to conduct their own private investigation into Lazeroff. This despite the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics calling for journalists like Magnuson to: “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”
-
Dave Harmon, former leader of Gannett human resources at the time holding a title of Gannett's "Chief People Person", held numerous exploratory conversations with the initial Plaintiff.
-
Michael G. Kane, Gannett’s Chief Operating Officer then and now, sent a letter a couple of weeks later to that initial Plaintiff, indicating that “absent any corroborating evidence, and given the passage of time” Gannett was “closing out” the matter.
----
In the months following the initial lawsuit filing, an additional eight men came forward bringing their own lawsuits detailing the sex abuse they faced at the hands of Gannett management employees when they worked as young paperboys in and around the Rochester, NY area in the 1980s.
Additionally, a similar lawsuit was brought in Arizona against the Gannett-owned Arizona Republic newspaper.
Further – and directly contradicting Kane and Gannett’s letter to the initial Plaintiff that no evidence of Lazeroff’s abuse could be found – reporters investigating the Rochester claims found:
-
At least one parent of a Plaintiff reported the abuse to Gannett and demanded Lazeroff be kept away from his child.
-
A Democrat & Chronicle / Gannett employee, a colleague of Lazeroff, indicated he knew of questionable incidents involving Lazeroff and young paperboys.
-
Other Democrat & Chronicle / Gannett employees, colleagues of Lazeroff, discussed inappropriate interactions between Lazeroff and paperboys.
-
Lazeroff was a known child sex abuser at the time with at least two arrests related to child sex abuse (one of Lazeroff's arrest records can be found here.)
-
Investigative reporters also learned that Lazeroff was fired immediately prior to his Gannett job, from a local bank, as he was reported to at the job he held at the bank, to have also sexually abused young men coming in to the bank for student loans.
----
In response to the lawsuits, Gannett management and its legal team:
-
Waited 246 days to provide the Court their correct corporate name after the first lawsuit was filed.
-
Waited 827 days to provide its first documents in response to Plaintiff’s Discovery demands.
-
After waiting 827 days, provided an avalanche of more than 36,000 electronic files in initial responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery, paced in drops over more than six months.
-
Delayed deposition of initial Plaintiff for 974 days.
-
After more than 1,000 days, insisted Plaintiffs' damages should be considered by New York State Worker’s Compensation Board, as Gannett believes its former 11 and 12-year-old employees should have known to apply for Workmen's Compensation after each instance of sexual abuse by the Gannett management employee.
-
Described in their legal filings, applying for Worker’s Compensation as a “simple online process”, and so 11 and 12-year-old paperboys should have submitted their complaints online in 1982 and 1983. When "online", and online processes did not exist.
-
Demanded the NY Workers’ Compensation Board—despite the Child Victims Act—determine if the Plaintiffs have a valid claim for damages or if they are restricted to workers’ compensation benefits. However, the Board lacks authority over such matters, as it is solely tasked with: "administering workers’ compensation, disability benefits, and Paid Family Leave." On July 26, 2024, the CVA case Judge's initial acceptance of Gannett's demand was overturned by the Fourth Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the NY State Supreme Court.
-
Through its hired lawyer, John G. Horn, an employee of Harter, Secrest & Emery, announced his opinion that this “narrow” decision of the Fourth Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the NY State Supreme Court reversing his work "did not address any of the plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing, which Gannett denies." This, despite more than five years of Horn and his bosses at Gannett avoiding Plaintiffs' allegations and using delay tactics to prevent a jury trial where evidence of that wrongdoing would be presented. Gannett's mouthpiece Horn made this statement of his opinion in a Democrat & Chronicle article that did not include any response from the nine Plaintiffs. It is unknown if the reporter of that article, Gannett's Gary Craig, reached out to any plaintiffs for their opinion on the matter as he did with Gannett's attorneys.
The lawsuits, now more than five years old, remain in legal purgatory.
----
From the day of the CVA case Judge's acquiescence to Gannett lawyer John G. Horn's demands in late 2022, until that decision was reversed by the NY Fourth Judicial Department, the Plaintiffs had been forced to await for nearly two years the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board uptake and consideration of the question of if the Board can make a decision on if these cases should be before them.
All these delays via legal gambits by Gannett, with the ensuing court time and attention being paid for with NY taxpayers dollars.
This despite the Child Victims Act (identified in NY State Law as CPLR 208, 214-g and 3403) unambiguously stating that:
Every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age… which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired… is hereby revived…
The CVA also specifically states:
The bill is a legislative acknowledgment of the unique character of sex crimes against children, which can have a multitude of effects upon victims, including being justifiably delayed in otherwise timely taking action against their abusers and/or those who facilitated their abuse. The bill sets up a specific framework for the revival of actions in which the courthouse door has been closed to victims, whether or not a victim previously attempted to litigate in the face of the aforementioned clearly stated legal authority against them.
The legislative intent is clear in that it did not carve out an exception for the Workers Compensation Law. If this was the intent then the New York Legislature would have clearly and unambiguously inserted – or even mentioned – that exception. It did not.
And finally, the CVA clearly addresses the speed with which CVA cases should be handled by the NY Court system, stating:
The Chief Administrator of the Courts shall promulgate rules for the timely adjudication of revived actions.
----
Meanwhile, during the more than five years since the first lawsuit was filed against it, Gannett and its newspapers have published dozens of investigative articles about institutionally-enabled child sex abuse, including reporting on the Catholic Church, USA Gymnastics, the Boy Scouts, and schools and other institutions.
These Gannett articles often lament and go into great investigative detail about the ways and tactics used by defenders of lawsuits alleging institutionally-enabled child sex abuse. Articles include:
-
A blind eye to sex abuse: How USA Gymnastics failed to report cases (Indy Star)
-
Child sex-abuse victims battle time, money in effort to hold suspects accountable. These laws can help. (USA Today)
-
Rochester diocese agrees to pay sex abuse survivors $55 million (Democrat & Chronicle)
Going further still, Gannett and its Democrat & Chronicle newspaper, researched, wrote and published for its Rochester NY readers, not one, but two "how-to's" on how to sue the Catholic Church for child sex abuse under the Child Victims Act. Each of these articles published by Gannett left out any mention of how other sexually abused paperboys in the Rochester community might sue Gannett for enabling widespread sexual abuse of it's paperboy employees.
Each of these articles then provide revenues back to Gannett, through reader subscription fees and associated advertising.
Most recently, on August, 2, 2024 – after 1,690 days of not providing any reporting on these allegations – Gannett and its Democrat & Chronicle newspaper finally did publish an article on the many lawsuits it is fighting against its former 11 to 14-year-old employees who were sexually abused on the job by another Gannett employee. This article attempted a legal analysis of the reversal of the CVA case Judge's decision by the NY Fourth Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. The article also provided Gannett-mouthpiece, John Horn – a staff lawyer at Gannett-firm Harter Secrest Emery, who has been on the case for more than five years fighting against and to silence the 11 to 14-year-old paperboys who were victims of sexual abuse by Gannett's management employee during their work in the early mornings – the opportunity to state his opinion that the reversal of his work for his client was "procedural" and "narrow". His opinion reached an estimated 100,000+ Gannett subscribers in the Rochester, NY area – the same jury pool for the plaintiffs’ cases. Notably, none of the plaintiffs were interviewed or given an opportunity to respond in that article.
----
Additionally of note during this time since the first lawsuit filing against Gannett in October of 2019:
-
Gannett’s stock (GCI) has dropped from a high of nearly $9.00 a share to its current price hovering in the $4-5 a share range.
-
Gannett CEO, Mike Reed – who has yet to comment on the sexual abuse of child employees of his company – has made more than $20 million in his pay packages, including over $12 million in 2021. Gannett said Reed “earns 160 times more than its median employee, who earns $48,419.”
-
As of March 1, 2022 Gannett has reduced headcount by more than 24%, and closed dozens of its newspapers and printing presses in the United States.
-
As of Dec. 31, 2022 Mike Reed-led Gannett had 11,200 employees, according to a regulatory filing. That's down from 21,255 employees following the 2019 merger with GateHouse
-
Gannett received $16 million in taxpayer subsidies from the Paycheck Protection Program during Covid.
-
Gannett took a $1.8 billion loan from private equity firm Apollo Global Management when it merged with another publishing company in 2019. It is unclear if Apollo knew about the initial claims that Gannett enabled child sex abuse of its paperboy employees before the merger, or knows the status of the plaintiff’s cases now.
-
Reporting in August 2024 indicated that according to it's latest balance sheet, Mike Reed-led Gannett had liabilities of $527.6 million due within 12 months, and liabilities of $1.28 billion due beyond 12 months. Offsetting this, it had $98.9 million in cash and $241.6 million in receivables that were due within 12 months. So its liabilities total $1.46 billion more than the combination of its cash and short-term receivables. That reporting stated "This deficit casts a shadow over the $680.4 million company, like a colossus towering over mere mortals."
----
Gannett has yet to provide any comment of any sort on the lawsuits.
It is not known if the Gannett Board of Directors or its shareholders have been made aware of this case and Gannett’s legal actions.
Current Gannett Board members are:
-
John Jeffry Louis, Director of the Olayan Group and S.C. Johnson & Son Company, Inc.
-
Maria Miller, most recently employed as Chief Marketing Officer for Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line
-
Debra Sandler, President and Chief Executive Officer of La Grenade Group, LLC
-
Laurence Tarica, Board Member D’Addario & Company, a manufacturer of musical instruments accessories
-
Maha Al Emam - unknown employment
Current major Gannett shareholders include:
-
Alden Global Capital
-
Invesco
-
Vanguard Group
If you have any relevant information about these cases or Gannett,
please send under confidence to: infogp@mail.com.