White Cameraman Fails to Show Racial Bias by Warner Bros.

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

Page 3

Ninth Circuit:

White Cameraman Fails to Show Racial Bias by Warner Bros.

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a trial judge did not err in granting summary judgment to Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. relating to claims against the studio by an Emmy-award-winning, white cameraman who asserted that his stint with the company was abruptly terminated due to his race after the media giant publicly posted a “Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion” statement.

Saying that the cameraman failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hiring decisions were motivated by racial considerations, the court opined that the company’s DEI statement did not amount to a race-based policy because it did not contain specific instructions on whom to hire, and there was no evidence that the executive in charge relied on the policy in choosing candidates.

Monday’s memorandum decision, signed by Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Anthony S. Johnstone, also rejects plaintiff Brian Armstrong’s assertion that he established a genuine dispute as to a hostile work environment based on allegations that a supervisor, Robinson Green, said “we are an endangered species” for being white and another manager, T. Ryan Brennan, directed him to “read the diversity thing” as “people like you” will not work again.

Camera Work

Armstrong had worked behind the camera on multiple shows for the studio under Executive Producer Chuck Lorre between 2003 and 2019, including “Dharma & Greg,” “Two and a Half Men,” and “The Big Bang Theory.” In 2013, he won an Emmy for his work on the latter program.

The plaintiff claimed that he spent his final 12 years with Warner Bros. working on shows produced on the company’s Burbank-based Stage 25 and alleged that he was assured of continued employment after his last show wrapped in May 2019. However, he said that he was not hired for the studio’s new show slated for filming at the location, “Bob Hearts Abishola,” which ran on CBS from September 2019 through May 2024.

On April 18, 2023, he filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against WB Studio Enterprises Inc. and Warner Bros., asserting racial employment discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981, which provides that “[a]ll persons within the…[U.S.] shall have the same right…to make and enforce contracts.” The defendants removed the case to federal court 31 days later.

In the operative pleading, Armstrong asserted that a sign entitled “Warner Bros.’ Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion” was posted on the stage wall in 2019 which said that “we must all ensure there is greater inclusion…of people of color…behind the camera” and that “we will…create a plan for implementing this commitment.”

He further alleged that “Defendants’ management began implementing the unlawful corporate policy whereby the White…crew members working on Stage 25…would be replaced by people who were not White…” and that employees announced that “the race…of the crew for…‘Abishola’ would strive to mirror the proportion of racial…background of the cast of [the show] wherein more than 50% of the…actors are…black.”

Summary Judgment

After the defendants moved for summary judgment, Senior District Court Judge George Wu of the Central District of California granted the request on May 7, 2024, saying that Armstrong had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the failure-to-hire claim because the evidence showed that he never inquired about the job on “Bob Hearts Abishola” until after the hiring decisions were made by Director of Photography Patti Lee. He also opined:

“Plaintiff claims that Lee adhered to the Commitment in hiring camera operators ….Read in full context, [the DEI statement] clearly is not racially discriminatory resulting in the exclusion of white people. While Plaintiff highlights the use of people of color, the Commitment also states that it seeks to ensure greater inclusion of women, the LGBTQ+ community, those with disabilities, and underrepresented groups—all of which includes white individuals from these groups. Thus, the Commitment is not racially discriminatory against white individuals as it actively seeks to include in greater numbers white people from underrepresented groups.”

Wu raised timing concerns with the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim and remarked:

“Even if the Court were to construe this situation as a continuing violation to include the pre-limitation comments, the Court would find that those comments are not sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim….[T]he majority of these comments were to Plaintiff in isolated situations as offhand comments speculating about future employment opportunities. Moreover, most of the comments themselves refer to diversity and the Commitment, which in and of itself is not of a racial nature.”

Ninth Circuit’s View

As to Armstrong’s failure-to-hire claim, Rawlinson, Miller, and Johnstone pointed out that the statements he cited relating to future hiring practices at the studio were not made by the actual decision-making employee, saying:

“Armstrong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the hiring decision maker, Patti Lee, made her decisions because of race rather than legitimate reasons….Statements made by people who were not involved in the hiring process are not material because Armstrong failed to establish a genuine dispute that those statements were connected to the hiring authority for the position at issue.”

Addressing the contention that the posted DEI statement established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lee overlooked him for employment based on his race, the jurists reasoned:

“Warner Brothers’s statement regarding its ‘Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion’ did not constitute a race-based reason for hiring other candidates because the commitment did not contain any specific instructions or directive on whom to hire, nor is there evidence that Patti Lee relied on the commitment in making her hiring decisions.”

Turning to the hostile work environment claim, they characterized remarks directed to Armstrong as akin to “teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents” and wrote:

“Armstrong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive work environment….There is no genuine dispute that the conduct challenged by Armstrong was not severe, pervasive, or unreasonably interfered with his work performance.”

The case is Armstrong v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc., 24-5049.