John Buccigross Settlement: The ESPN Harassment Case That Everyone Forgot — Until Now

When the settlement was submitted in December 2019, ESPN issued a statement that, if you count the names, was precisely eight words long: “Adrienne Lawrence and ESPN have resolved their dispute and agreed to move on.” No monetary amount. The specific accusations are not acknowledged. There was no explanation of what, if anything, would change on the campus in Bristol, Connecticut, where Lawrence had reported an atmosphere that was, in her opinion, far more hostile than most corporate communications departments would want to be recorded in federal court documents. The case was closed. The anchor did not move. And very few people outside of the media industry took notice.

Through a fellowship program, Adrienne Lawrence became an on-air legal analyst for ESPN. The lawsuit she filed in March 2018 detailed a workplace where male employees kept what she called “scorecards”—actual lists, apparently shared among coworkers, naming female employees they were targeting for sexual encounters—and openly watched pornography at their desks. It’s the kind of accusation that usually carries weight when it appears in a federal complaint, and Lawrence’s filing added specificity: she claimed that anchor John Buccigross sent her unsolicited shirtless photos and called her derogatory nicknames, such as “doll.” She claimed to have informed human resources and supervisors about the behavior. The lawsuit then claimed that instead of resolving the issue, ESPN essentially terminated her employment there by refusing to extend her contract after the two-year fellowship period ended and denying her opportunities for professional growth.

At the time, ESPN responded by saying it had looked into Lawrence’s claims and found them to be unfounded. The Hollywood Reporter reported that during the proceedings, ESPN published what it called “text messages.” Lawrence’s lawsuit later described these messages as forged, intended to give the false impression that she had been pursuing Buccigross inappropriately. On the surface, at least, the conflicting accounts made the case appear to be a disagreement over what the evidence truly demonstrated. There was never a trial to determine the veracity of either side’s version of the documentary record. Less than two years after the lawsuit began, the settlement was filed, resolving all issues under conditions that neither party had to reveal.

It’s worthwhile to consider the practical implications of that. In a situation like this, a settlement with undisclosed terms usually means that both parties agreed to cease public communication and that some money was exchanged. It does not imply that the accusations were validated. It also does not imply that they were untrue. It means the litigation ended on terms both sides could accept, which can reflect almost anything — the strength of the evidence, the cost of continued proceedings, the desire of one party to stop the process, the calculation by a large corporation that a quiet resolution protects institutional interests better than a public verdict, whatever that verdict might have been. The 2019 settlement and ESPN’s 2018 “no merit” ruling do not logically contradict each other, but their coexistence does raise issues that the settlement structure was intended to leave unresolved.

Throughout it all, Buccigross has persisted at ESPN, amassing an exceptionally loyal fan base by hockey broadcasting standards. Genuine fan reactions to his recent multi-year extension were mixed; some were enthusiastic, some were extremely dissatisfied with his play-by-play style, and some specifically cited the Lawrence case as justification for doubting ESPN’s choice. The online hockey community has a lengthy and thorough history of discussing whether his passionate, occasionally gasping announcing style benefits or detracts from the sport. It’s hard to argue with his sincere love of hockey. In one way or another, his willingness to continue working for a company that, according to its own statement in 2019, merely “agreed to move on” from a harassment lawsuit involving his name is also documented.

There’s a feeling, looking back at how this case resolved, that it fits a pattern that was enormously visible across American media in the 2017–2019 period — the MeToo era producing a wave of settlements and departures that varied enormously depending on the specific individual, the power dynamics involved, and the institutional interest of the employer in protecting its talent roster. A few well-known cases ended careers. Others came to peaceful conclusions and kept their jobs. Years later, it’s still unclear whether the particular circumstances Lawrence described led to any significant structural changes. Since 2019, ESPN has remained silent on the issue. The whole story of what transpired between Buccigross, the network that hired Lawrence, and the coworkers whose actions she recorded in federal court may never be known. That was precisely what the settlement guaranteed.