A Peek Inside the World’s Largest Black Religious Broadcasting Network
You might think it odd that Kevin Adell, founder and CEO of The Word Network Operating Company (TWN), which according to the Court is “touted to be the largest African American religious broadcasting network in the world,” is a white guy. The network still touts itself as “the network of choice for African American programming” and claims to reach 93 million homes in the United States. There aren’t 93 million African-American homes in the United States, but I assume that God is color blind. And God is not alone. If you look at TWN’s homepage, it looks like very few Black ministers remain. Bishop George Bloomer, plaintiff in an action against TWN and Mr. Adell, is no longer among them.
As Violet Ikonomova reported last year in the Detroit Free Press, Mr. Adell abruptly changed the programming of his Detroit television station, switching to conservative talk radio, and he has put his network up for sale, claiming that he was ready to retire, The sale has yet to occur.
Bishop Bloomer’s action shines a light on the inner workings of TWN, and it’s not pretty. He brought his action on his own behalf and on behalf of his corporate entity, GG Bloomer Ministries (GGB). In Bloomer v. The Word Network Operating Company, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss. These may be just the facts as alleged, but the Court does not say so, so these may be stipulated facts. In any case, according to the Court, Bishop Bloomer has worked with TWN since 2000. He originally paid $2000 for a slot on the network. Later, the $2000 fee was waived, and Mr. Bloomer was able to make money by selling merchandise (Bibles and anointed oils) for commissions ranging from $2 (oil) to $10 (Bibles). None of these deals are in writing, because Mr. “Adell insisted on handshake agreements and did not have written agreements with any of the on-air preachers, including Bloomer.” Jesus wept.
Later, Mr. Adell chided Bishop Bloomer for writing in a text something that should have been done via phone call. Stringer Bell (below) knows why.
In 2019, the two had a falling out over a meme. The meme, below, featured an oversized Mr. Adell, dressed as a pimp, surrounded by diminutive versions of the Black ministers featured on his network, including Bishop Bloomer. Mr. Adell was amused. He shared (via text!) his opinion that Bishop Bloomer, as portrayed in the meme, looked like Tattoo from Fantasy Island. Jesus wept.
Bishop Bloomer was not amused. Nor were one hundred other Black clergymen who called for a boycott of TWN because of Mr. Adell’s alleged racial insensitivity. As Mr. Adell would not stop referencing the meme, Bishop Bloomer quit TWN. In his deposition, he cited the meme and delays in delivering merchandise for sale as his two reasons for quitting TWN. Religious wars have been fought over less, I suppose.
Bishop Bloomer sued for racial discrimination in contracting, relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also alleges ordinary breach of contract for failure to pay commissions on the sales of merchandise along with alternative, equitable claims.
The Court first rejected TWN’s argument that it was not a party to any of the alleged agreements because those were made through a separate entity, Church of Word (the Church). The Court first found that there was sufficient evidence that TWN was a party to at least some of the contracts. After all, Bishop Bloomer appeared on TWN. As to the contracts to sell merchandise, the Court found that, following discovery, there is evidence that TWN and the Church were interrelated entities sufficient to allow the contract claims relating to merchandise to go forward against TWN. The two entities shared corporate headquarters, management and directors, book-keeping personnel, and IT support. The two entities work with one another exclusively. Mr. Adell controls personnel decisions at both entities and is the sole owner of both. The Court also rejected Mr. Adell’s arguments that only his corporate entities and not he was bound by the alleged agreements with Bishop Bloomer. At one point, the Court seems to make an adverse inference as a result of Mr. Adell’s insistence on avoiding written agreements. With no written agreement, there is no evidence that Mr. Adell personally and TWN were not parties to the alleged agreements.
As to the § 1981 claims, the Court carefully went through the elements of contract formation. It concluded that there were sufficient allegations of a contract for hosting services and for commissions for selling Bishop Bloomer’s products. The Court found insufficient evidence of agreement on essential terms with respect to commissions for Bishop Bloomer’s sales of the Church’s products. Bishop Bloomer could bring a § 1981 action even if he was an at-will employee. Mr. Adell’s taunts of Bishop Bloomer in connection with the meme establish racial animus. In addition, on at least one occasion, he seemed to accept the characterization of TWN as a “plantation” and referred to his ability to reduce Bishop Bloomer’s air time as “the whip.” Jesus wept.
Finally, in order to make out a § 1981 claim, Bishop Bloomer will have to make a showing of constructive termination based on racial animus. In his deposition testimony, Bishop Bloomer cited two reasons for his decision to quit TWN, and one of those reasons was unrelated to racial animus. Still, the Court concluded, there is sufficient basis to send the issue to a jury. So, two of Bishop Bloomer’s three § 1981 claims survive. The result was the same as to Bishop Bloomer’s retaliation claims.
The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1981 hostile work environment claims to the extent that they were brought by Bishop Bloomer’s corporate entity, GGB, and to the extent they relate to commissions for the Church’s products. Bishop Bloomer’s other two individual § 1981 actions for hostile work environment can proceed.
The pattern continued with Bishop Bloomer’s breach of contract claims. Those can proceed only to the extent that the relate to hosting services and commissions on sales of Bishop Bloomer’s products. If Bishop Bloomer is unsuccessful on those breach of contract claims, he can seek equitable relief for unjust enrichment. His claim for equitable relief can also proceed with respect to the commissions on sales of the Church’s merchandise, as he subjectively believed he was entitled to payment, repeatedly inquired about payment, and was never told anything that would dispel his belief in entitlement to payment.