Blog Post Detail

Not long after New Year’s day of this year, The Weather Channel started shopping itself around to the highest bidder. It was discussed that the combined properties of Weather.com and The Weather Channel could bring in as much as $5 billion in sales. The The Weather Channle and Weather.comNew York Times broke the story revealing that the sale was imminent, which you can read about here. As of today, May 8th, 2008, the Weather.com website holds the spot of the 22nd most visited website in the United States and 102nd most visited website in the world, according to Alexa.com which you can view here.

Where exactly does this sky high price come from for these weather related properties? The Weather Channel is rare in the cable landscape where it still remains a privately held cable channel. In addition to still being private, The Weather Channel has seen success in offering breaking weather news, such as updates on hurricanes and content covering climate change. In addition, major websites like Yahoo, MySpace and AOL.com use Weather.com for weather updates. With companies like News Corporation, Comcast, NBC and General Electric interested in making a deal to purchase this heavyweight what could go wrong?Hillary Andrews and Bob Stokes on The Weather Channel

As you will find from the court documents provided below, a long history of events is creating trouble for a fire-sale that could number in the billions. In the fall of 2003, Hillary Andrews was hired as a co-host to Bob Stokes for the prime-time weekend show on The Weather Channel. Ms. Andrews was brought on as a replacement for a previous co-host that complained of hostile and abusive conduct. The previous co-host was pushed off to a position at TWC termed as a “floater” position and late night work after reaching a breaking point with Stokes when he struck her on the arm. The previous anchor came under greater scrutiny from TWC while in the new “floater” position and left soon after.

In her new prime-time anchor position, Ms. Andrews endured the same conduct, which reportedly became worse than the previous anchor experienced. It was stated in the court documents that Bob Stokes had become emboldened by The Weather Channel management and human resources due to never receiving much discipline for his previous actions. It was also stated in court documents that Stokes had observed that The Weather Channel prized him for his high ratings, shielded him from complaints from those whom he harassed, and retaliated against those who dared complain. This seemed to create a worse situation for Hillary Andrews the new co-host.

The extent of the harassment of Ms. Andrews was reportedly worse, “because Stokes was sexually attracted to her and romantically obsessed with her.” The bizarre relationship started out slow with comments from Stokes about his attraction, questions of private Hillary Stokes Weather Channelrelationships and repeated attempts to get Ms. Andrews to go out on with him. The harassment became more heated when Stokes resorted to crude sexual remarks like, “Will you lick my swizzle stick?” Physical harassment followed with Stokes invading Ms. Andrew’s personal space, following her into the dressing room and leering at her chest.

A large number of statements that Stokes made were revealed in the following court documents you can read below. When Ms. Andrews became more blunt and hostile to Mr. Stoke’s attempts, the relationship turned into a sour retaliatory battle. Mr. Stokes was said to have interfered with and sabotaged Ms. Andrews on-air performance. Ms. Andrews found it hard to complain about Stoke’s behavior because she knew what happened to the previous anchor when the complaints reached an intolerable level. Managers at The Weather Channel often thanked Ms. Andrews for “working with Bob, “getting along with Bob,” and “putting up with Bob.”

Once word leaked out from people within the company that Ms. Andrew’s couldn’t tolerate Bob Stoke’s actions anymore, Ms. Andrew’s was told her three-year contract would not be renewed. While waiting for the contract to expire, The Weather Channel moved her from her prime time assignment to a series of undesirable shifts and assignments. The new jobs Ms. Andrew’s was graced with were the same jobs the previous anchor had before she resigned. It was formally announced to Ms. Andrews that her contract would not be renewed after her contract expired.Hillary Andrews and Bob Stokes on The Weather Channel

Shortly before Hillary Andrew’s contract expired she filed a demand for arbitration according to her contract with The Weather Channel. The main complaint of the arbitration was that Ms. Andrews felt TWC allowed her to be sexually harassed by Bob Stokes. On January 31st, 2008 the arbitrator issued an award of an undisclosed amount to Ms. Andrews for the harassment she endured for three years. The hope by management at TWC seemed to be that this would be the end to this whole nightmare of co-anchor harassment issues getting out of control. The Weather Channel is now trying to keep the 17 page arbitration under wraps while the bidding process for it’s billion dollar sale is underway. Unfortunately for TWC, news and documents have crept around the Internet and more people are learning of The Weather Channel’s own tropical depression that seems to be building into a hurricane.

What do you think? Do you think Hillary Andrews should drop the case now that she has received an arbitration reward? Do you feel this case is representative of the current environment many women have to deal with every day? Tell us how you feel about this case and about your own work experiences. Sexual harassment in the workplace seems to be brewing into quite a storm.

Join the Discussion

The Weather Channel Sexual Harassment Case Court Documents - Get more documents

[?]
Share This

56 Comments to “The Weather Channel’s $5 billion dollar sexual blunder”

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNot long after New Year’s day of this year, The Weather Channel started shopping itself around to the highest bidder. It was discussed that the combined properties of Weather.com and The Weather Channel could bring in as much as $5 … […]

  2. on 09 May 2008 at 12:37 amDT

    Outstanding article. Perhaps this pattern of behavior is indicative of the overall climate at TWC. I have long wondered why an inordinate number of female anchors at TWC are pregnant at any given time.

    Maybe TWC should merge with FLDS.

  3. on 09 May 2008 at 12:14 pmWatcher

    This should be interesting to watch play out… as soon as the charges reach the ears of major network media officials.

  4. on 09 May 2008 at 3:52 pmMr. Sustainable

    Cases of this type can be very difficult to win, especially against a deep-pocketed defendent. So, since the allegations have been proved in a court of law, to the defendents I shout: SHAME ON YOU!

  5. on 09 May 2008 at 4:17 pmPeter

    Should she stop? Absolutely not. From what I read here, the only difference between Ms. Andrews and the other anchors was that Ms. Andrews stood up and did something about it. And good for her, too, because, again, from what I read here, that sick bastard didn’t have a care in the world (I personally have zero tolerance for arrogance), and the network was actually protecting him.

    I personally don’t think she should stop until he’s been fired, and the network should make a full (and public) apology to her, and to the other anchors who suffered the same fate before.

  6. on 09 May 2008 at 5:07 pmJason Voorhees

    I’d fuck her.

  7. on 09 May 2008 at 5:21 pmMD

    I find it incredible that in this day and age, a multimillion dollar business is not aware of the liability it can put itself in if it fails to properly address harrassment charges.

    It just proves Dilbert was right:
    “I used to be intimidated by management, until I realized they were just morons with good hair.”
    “I hope you don’t think that of me…?”
    “No, that looks like a bad toupee.”

  8. on 09 May 2008 at 5:22 pmJohn Doe

    “Will you lick my swizzle stick?” - Bob Stokes

    quoted and fukken saved

  9. on 09 May 2008 at 6:35 pmF.Short

    Fire the chimp - anyone who pulls that crap on the weather channel should be fired. I bet if they put a great piece of ass in his place, ratings will skyrocket!!!!!!

    “Will you lick my swizzle stick?” = classic

  10. on 09 May 2008 at 7:20 pmFreddie

    I’d hit it

    Vorhees youre lame

  11. on 09 May 2008 at 7:39 pmBrendan

    We Need more women like her to stand up against Asshole guys like him. She should stick it to Him and the company for Saying

    “THIS IS OKAY”

    when it’s not. Comments like this can driving you literally insane. I hope the company goes bankrupt and that guy ends up homeless on the street and gets shot by police for feeling up some girl. Rot in hell bob stokes

  12. on 09 May 2008 at 7:42 pmNancy

    Stokes is a pig. I have no idea why he was considered the more important anchor and his disgusting and unprofessional behavior overlooked. His ratings must have been purely due to the time slot. Clearly his superiors as well as the Weather Channel entity must be held accountable.

    If I were a potential buyer, I would seriously question how this lack of ethics and competence would not potentially carry over to other aspects of the Weather Channel organization?

  13. on 09 May 2008 at 8:23 pmBPD Victim

    Read “Without Conscience”, or “The Psychopath Next Door”. This is right out of Stout’s book.

    He’s a Grade A psychopath, and is protected by the company.

  14. on 09 May 2008 at 8:55 pmDaphny EMILE

    I think she could not stop

  15. on 09 May 2008 at 9:19 pmWC Fan

    OK, sexist comment…the WC has always had some of the hottest women in TV on its air. With the exception of Kristina Abernathy on the weekends now, they’re worth watching just for themselves. My personal favorite has always been Sharon Resultan.

    That said, there is absolutely no justification for the harassment that occurred or the WC’s tolerance of it. Yes, she should pursue him through any legal remedies available and the WC as well. Despite the arbitration agreement, there is legal culpability on both Stoke’s (or should I say ‘Stroke’s) and the WC’s part. Unfortunately I doubt it will have any effect on the sale of the network or its assets. Bidness is bidness and any owner will only care that the entire matter (and any other potential ones that may be lurking beneath the surface, which, hopefully a thorough due diligence would flush out) is legally and financially resolved before purchase. Maybe it will knock half a mil off the price but that’s nothing compared to 5 billion. Sounds to me like Stokes is just another loser trying to compensate for having a small dick.

  16. on 09 May 2008 at 9:25 pmDounia

    I think that her personnality count more than anything

  17. on 09 May 2008 at 9:27 pmDounia

    I think that her personnality counts more than anything.

  18. on 09 May 2008 at 9:28 pmBob Stokes

    Now, let me get my defense in here- When I said “Will you lick my swizzle stick?”, I was clearly asking if she would like to have a candy cane. I apologize.

  19. on 09 May 2008 at 9:32 pmGhens SANON

    She must be there is not confusion between her and Ms Andrews

  20. on 09 May 2008 at 9:38 pmcambry

    the story is very amazing, Ms Andrew has chance find this guy and don’t kill him in the moment when he done action on her.

  21. on 09 May 2008 at 9:42 pmcambry

    this is a bad story, i dont want to comment long time. i cried for Ms Andrew.

  22. on 09 May 2008 at 9:46 pmEd

    First- misprint- Paragraph 8- “On January 31st, 2008 the arbitrator issued an award of an undisclosed amount to Ms. Stokes for the harassment she endured for three years.” Should be- Ms.Andrews for the harassment she endured for three years.

    Second- I wondered what happened to her.

    Third- I thought he was Gay.

  23. on 09 May 2008 at 9:46 pmdiogene jean samuel altema

    God bless you all.
    I think the cas is all about forgiven as we forgive.
    Matthew,6:12

  24. […] the story broke on the New York Times that the Weather Channel and its website weather.com were out looking […]

  25. on 09 May 2008 at 9:48 pmLix

    TWC should feel lucky that Stokes did not get to the point of murdering his co-anchor. They’d be in much bigger trouble if that were the case. Stokes is a classic violent stalker case, and for TWC to ignore that is shameful. Come on, I’m sure there are many young male anchors out there who aren’t psycho and could do just as well in the ratings as Stokes. What horrible management TWC has that it blatantly ignores repeated harassment and violence over a long period of time, and then they want to cover it up? TWC, step up, admit that you made a mistake and correct the situation. People will respect you more if you fire Stokes and are transparent. To try to cover it up makes you look just as evil as Stokes.

  26. on 09 May 2008 at 9:49 pmStanley Jean Charles

    According to me i believe that Mr Stokes no has right to resorted this kind of speech to Ms and following her into the dressing room and leering at her chest. i want to tell to all person who manage an entreprise, it important to have respect for the employees not only for the men but also for the women.

  27. on 09 May 2008 at 9:50 pmStanley Jean Charles

    According to me i believe that Mr Stokes no has right to resorted this kind of speech to Ms Andrewsonal and following her into the dressing room and leering at her chest. i want to tell to all person who manage an entreprise, it important to have respect for the employees not only for the men but also for the women.

  28. on 09 May 2008 at 9:51 pmDaphny EMILE

    You kidding Bob….. “Will you lick my swizzle stick?”, i think you can ask or say her if she would like to have a candy cane……or to………i don’t know…….but not in the work place…….Yeah,……….. “candy cane” or ….suck my or your… i don’t know, you can always ask her to go out with you…………but, …Not following her………. into the dressing room…….. and leering at her chest…..In the work place……………………..

  29. on 09 May 2008 at 9:52 pmLajoie Jean Iltis

    In this case Ms Andrews has two sides to take, she could pray if she a woman prayer to take the best side.Or if she doen’t ,she couldn’t stop in order to make this kind of thing top forevermore in her locality and all over this country, and the Law have to help her with that ,to make the or poeple who have besiness stop to make harrassment on the employees or employers.It very good to put a key poligamy .
    And the must to make the Boss respect the employees or employers,
    (and something else, I wonder if Mss Andrews doen’t do that on purpose in order to make moneys with the Boss?) the reason I said that becuase the girls want be rich they try to include these kinds of thing to earn thier money as they need.
    So, what I think The Law have to gudge that correctly.and may God give you opportunity to organise it. tank you!

  30. on 09 May 2008 at 9:53 pmcambry

    Mr Stokes past many times with Ms Adrew maybe that’s why he do it. i think that mr Stokes must to pay for that.

  31. on 09 May 2008 at 9:53 pmStanley Jean Charles

    According to me i believe that Mr Stokes no has right to resorted this kind of speech to Ms Andrew and following her into the dressing room in order to leer at her chest. i want to tell to all persons who manage an entreprise, it is important to have respect for the employees not only for the men but also for the women.

  32. on 09 May 2008 at 9:54 pmJean Denis William

    I think the respect for an employ is mory important than mone, Ms Andrews have two choice : respect and money.for me the recpect is more important.

  33. on 09 May 2008 at 9:58 pmdiogenejeansamuelaltema

    I think the case is all about forgiven as we forgive.
    Matthew,6:12

  34. on 09 May 2008 at 10:16 pmStanley Jean Charles

    i think it is time, so that every one has respect for one another.

  35. on 09 May 2008 at 10:22 pmStanley Jean Charles

    i ask also if sometimes Ms Andrew does not tease Mr Stokes not only by her speech or by her behavior in field of working.

  36. on 09 May 2008 at 10:43 pmDounia

    I think that The most important is to forgive. But mr Stokes will pay one day for what he does cause according to the bible every one will pay for all that they have done while they are leaving in this earth.

  37. on 09 May 2008 at 10:47 pmStanley Jean Charles

    i ask to Mr Stoke to excuse Ms Andrew may be during this moment it could be that this guy was loosing his mind.

  38. on 10 May 2008 at 8:53 amCheaters Quiz

    did he really say swizzle stick common what a newb i think that even if she was sueing for the maximum amount it wouldn’t dent the sale and the owner wouldnt mind keeping the lawsuit open, i guess they might just not want someone elses garbage

  39. on 10 May 2008 at 5:47 pmTom B.

    You Go Girl! No one should have to put up with that crap! I hope she wins and wins BIG!

  40. on 11 May 2008 at 4:06 am33 40 weather

    […] Bob Stokes. As TWC tries to sell it’s Weather.com website &amp weather channel for 5 billion dolhttp://businessshrink.biz/psychologyofbusiness/2008/05/08/the-weather-channels-5-billion-dollar-sexu…ABC 33/40 Weather BlogThe ABC 33/40 weather Podcast for Thursday, April 3, 2008 is now online. The […]

  41. on 11 May 2008 at 12:52 pmMul

    Typical Liberal behavior - the rules don’t apply to us. Along with the Gorebal warming hoax, TWC is neck deep in Marxist class rules. We are all equal, some are just more equal than others.

  42. on 12 May 2008 at 1:55 pmStanley Jean Charles

    I think it is important for Ms Andrew to claim her right by the court of justice.

  43. on 12 May 2008 at 2:34 pmJean Denis William

    I think get to the tribunal not the essential thing ,the meaning with Ms Andrew and Mr Stokes it’s more important, case i don’t know wath comportement Ms andrew en face Mr stokes ,a charnal comportement can push Mr stokes open a conversation like that.

  44. on 12 May 2008 at 2:47 pmTeddy

    In this case, i think she couldn’t stop.

  45. on 12 May 2008 at 7:04 pmFrancois Sarah

    In this situation, i think that Ms Andrews supposed to call Jesus cause in this humiliation’s life we need Jesus for fighting.I think also that Ms Andrews should conserve her personality and her respect cause they are important in a society.

  46. […] a hurricane tear your crappy state a new asshole. But there is a dark side to The Weather Channel. A world of sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and corporate cover-ups. Yes, the unthinkable has happened: The Weather Channel is […]

  47. on 12 May 2008 at 9:01 pmhillary andrews weather

    […] […]

  48. on 12 May 2008 at 11:57 pmJackal

    I just came over here from cracked.com…..give them some props!

    Honestly, this is a bit of a travesty. In my workplaces over the years, even a hint of sexual harassment was delt with swiftly and harshly. This kind of support from management for these acts is ridiculous, ranking up there in unconscionable acts with the Catholic Church shuffling abusive priests into new, unsuspecting parishes.

    Stokes should not only be fired, but should be charged with criminal harassment. This kind of persistent attacks, both on screen, during taping but off screen, and after taping would result in heavy charges or lawsuits for any normal man in North America, so why does this idiot get special treatment?

  49. on 13 May 2008 at 2:17 pmbob stokes of the weather channel

    […] […]

  50. on 23 May 2008 at 7:54 pmHillaryAndrewsFan

    i’d TOTALLY do her!!!

  51. […] read more | digg story […]

  52. […] read more | digg story […]

  53. on 01 Sep 2008 at 3:59 pmDan C.

    I think that she should be proud that he was saying anything if he said anything and leering at her breasts. It is the reason why she got the anchor job because people like looking at an attractive woman. They don’t have ugly people on television and that is why she makes the big bucks

  54. […] Sex storm at Weather.com (Business Shrink) […]

  55. […] dressing room and staring at her boobs. But, they looked so happy together. — Some sources say Andrews got as much as $5 million from The Weather Channel in her lawsuit. If that’s the […]

  56. […] Sex storm at Weather.com (Business Shrink) […]

Write a Comment