Deadspin Writer/Editor Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against Employer Adding To Deadspin Legal Woes

Last week, the parents of the nine-year-old Chiefs fan whom Deadspin falsely framed for wearing blackface, filed a lawsuit against the outlet and its parent company G/O Media for "maliciously and wantonly" attacking their son.

This week, Deadspin writer and editor Julie DiCaro filed a lawsuit against her employer for gender discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that G/O Media did not hire DiCaro as the full-time editor-in-chief of Deadspin because she is a woman.

What evidence did she provide that her gender cost her the position, as opposed to Deadspin simply hiring someone whom it preferred over her?

She didn't provide any. 

The lawsuit simply claims that females are part of a "protected class," and thus DiCaro has a pathway to sue under the guise of "Title VII, the Equal Pay Act" if a male is promoted over her.

Per the filling:

You can read the full lawsuit here. 

Despite G/O Media receiving two lawsuits in less than a week, one is more credible than the other.

Deadspin knowingly defamed a nine-year-old kid by using a deceptive photo that showed only one side of his face, cropping out the side painted red – making it look as if he wore blackface to a Chiefs game.

The outlet was aware of the full photo yet did not correct the story for 11 days, until the family threatened legal action. The timeline is damning.

Deadspin lied about a child, framed him as a racist, knew it lied, and doubled down on the lie. Per that lawsuit, the lies published in the article incited death threats toward the kid and his family.

Lexie Rigden, an attorney and frequent legal analyst for Fox News, provided the following explanation to OutKick about the lawsuit and the family's chances of succeeding:

"Although defamation laws vary state by state, in general, to prove defamation, a plaintiff would have to show that a false statement was made (i.e. that this child is wearing blackface); that the statement was published to third parties (easy--it's all over the internet, with even Elon Musk commenting); that the defendant knew it was false or was at least was negligent in publishing it (Phillips and Deadspin saw the full photo and knew the context in which it was taken); and damages, that some harm was caused to the plaintiff's reputation (the death threats cited in the lawsuit)."

Let's see:

Deadspin published a false statement. Check. Third parties re-published the false statement. Check. Deadspin and Phillips knew they printed a false statement. Check. The kid and his parents endured damages by way of threats and harassment. Check.

Translation: defamation.

By contrast, DiCaro's lawsuit reads like a desperate, spoiled brat trying to cash in – again -- by way of the gender card.

That’s common practice for Julie DiCaro. Her schtick is simple: she blames being a woman for all of her shortcomings and tries to slander anyone in her way as a "sexist."

She tried doing so to this very outlet a few months ago.

Last November, we sent requests for comment to the following G/O Media employees regarding why it did not update the story about the Chiefs fan with accurate information: Carron J. Phillips, the author; Jim Rich, Deadspin editor-in-chief; Jim Spanfeller, G/O Media CEO; and Julie DiCaro, Deadspin senior writer.

That’s three men and a woman. Yet DiCaro called the inquires – you guessed it – "sexist" on X. 

We couldn’t quite figure out what she meant. So I asked her for proof of her claim, that I am a vile sexist.  Unfortunately, she did not respond. 

Rather, she set her X account to private – where it remains today, three months later.

But something notable emerged after DiCaro tried smearing OutKick: her past.

See, DiCaro is no different from a card-carrying member of the anti-racist movement. She is a hypocrite. Several users commented below her response by revealing her rather naughty and dare I say "sexist" past.

Here are some of the posts provided in the thread:

That is the woman who has made a career calling others sexist, racist, and bigoted. And now she's trying to bring down her employer using the same measures.

It seems as if DiCaro senses the death of Deadspin on the horizon. She hopes to earn an easy paycheck before it melts. 

She knows Deadspin's past is checkered. Thus, the company is likely to settle even a frivolous lawsuit, like hers, by paying off the plaintiff simply to avoid discovery, which would bring actual misdeeds to light.

DiCaro wants to make sure the defamed, emotionally distressed child is not seen as the only victim of her employer. She wants some of that sympathy, too.