What Jurors Are Being Asked to Decide

• A federal jury must decide whether a racially charged meme was merely an offensive joke between longtime associates or evidence of unlawful discrimination.
• The evidence goes beyond one image, including repeated “Tattoo” references, a blackface-style photograph and an alleged threat involving “the whip.”
• The case is being tried under federal civil-rights law, meaning offensiveness alone is not enough — Bloomer must connect the alleged racial treatment to his contractual rights and retaliation.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

A Michigan federal jury is now hearing a dispute that raises a harder legal question than whether a joke crossed the line: When does offensive conduct become illegal racial discrimination?

Bishop George Bloomer, a Black televangelist, pastor and author, is suing The Word Network, Church of the Word and network founder Kevin Adell, who is white, alleging racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The case is Bloomer et al. v. The Word Network Operating Company Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-12433, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, jurors heard competing descriptions of the relationship: Bloomer’s side says the conduct was racial discrimination; Adell’s defense portrays the disputed meme as a joke between longtime friends that was misunderstood.

But the evidence identified in the court record makes this case considerably broader than a single meme.

The dispute traces to September 2019, when Adell was shown an article containing a digitally altered image depicting him in a white fur coat in front of a limousine, surrounded by smaller images of Black ministers, including Bloomer. Adell later showed and texted the image to Bloomer. Bloomer immediately objected, saying he considered the imagery racist.

That should have been the end of the joke. According to evidence described by the court, it was not.

Adell subsequently referred to Bloomer as “Tattoo,” after the character from Fantasy Island, and sent him additional images after Bloomer repeatedly complained. The following day, Adell sent a photograph showing a white man whose face had been marked over in black. Bloomer interpreted it as a response to his complaint about blackface.

The allegations then move from insults to something legally more important — control over Bloomer’s work.

Court records state that Adell acknowledged considering reducing Bloomer’s airtime and referred to restricting that airtime as “the whip.” Bloomer also alleges that during a later telephone conversation Adell invoked the pimp imagery from the meme and made a racially explicit remark when Bloomer indicated he was leaving the network. Adell and the defendants dispute portions of Bloomer’s account.

That distinction matters.

Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination. A crude joke, standing alone, does not automatically establish a federal civil-rights violation. The jury must evaluate the full course of conduct, whether race actually motivated the treatment, whether the conduct became severe or pervasive, and whether Bloomer’s contractual or economic relationship with the network was affected.

The court has already ruled that Bloomer produced enough evidence to let jurors answer those questions. At summary judgment, the judge specifically found evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that repeated race-related comments continued after Bloomer asked Adell to stop and that threats concerning airtime could support his claims.

There is another important evidentiary wrinkle. Before trial, the court barred jurors from seeing the specific contents of a Detroit chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists letter and a boycott petition condemning Adell’s conduct. The judge reasoned that those materials effectively told jurors what conclusion to reach on racism — the very determination the jury must make for itself. The existence of those reactions, however, may still be admissible for limited purposes.

That ruling captures what makes this trial worth watching.

Jurors are not being asked whether the internet meme was tasteful. They are being asked to separate bad judgment from unlawful conduct — and then determine whether what happened after Bloomer objected turned a dispute between two men into racial discrimination prohibited by federal law.

About the Author

Samuel López is a reporter and news correspondent for USA Herald and a veteran legal professional with more than two decades of experience analyzing state and federal litigation, civil claims, evidentiary records and complex legal disputes. His legal background informs his reporting on cases such as Bloomer v. The Word Network, where the difference between offensive conduct, admissible evidence and legally actionable discrimination depends heavily on the underlying record and the burden of proof.

Keep Reading Beyond the Headlines

If you value reporting that examines the evidence, court record and legal issues behind the headline, subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive legal analysis, investigations and national coverage.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X at @RealUSAHerald