"I'm shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on here!"
Well, I've read enough. (about half of the complaint)
Hate to say I told ya so but I've been saying for a long time that O'Reilly was going down like Lonesome Rhoades in "A Face in the Crowd."
Only O'Reilly is going down harder. Somehow FOX has to cut their losses.
Dan Rather is smiling, damn it!
I really don't care a damn which way this goes.
I don't know if I'm the only one that remembers this or not---but last spring Hannity hinted at knowing something about a fellow radio talk show host that could bring him down---some deep, dark secret he said would shock us. Someone had given Hannity the info because this other host had said what had been perceived as derrogatory things about Sean in the past. But Sean declined to elaborate. I thought at the time it was probably O'Blowhard---and it looks like I was right.
"I'm shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on here!"
It's sad that O'Reilly has few friends now...
Maybe if he hadn't spit on the swifties, I would be willing to look into this and give him the benefit of doubt. Now I'm not so sure.
The Buchanan Factor?
In a way, this couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. He showed no pity (even pithy pity) when Rush got hit with exposure--he was just there to pick-up the radio pieces for his own ratings.
His success has led to a touch of arrogance--and it shows. Now he gets a little of his own medicine--and we shall we what happens......
Wonder if HE is going to be spinning it now?
to discredit O'Reilly or shut him up during an election year.
The plaintiff suffered "concious pain and suffering, physical injury, great mental distress, shock, fright and humiliation, and incurred monetary loss..."
~~~~~~~
This is not to excuse what O'Reilly may have done or said, but over and over, again and again, repeatedly for years and years....she kept going back to that job, going out to dinner with O' because???....(let me guess)
(sounds like a case right up John Edwards' pithy little alley)
well, i'm not changing my name. i dont want to see all of the "welcome to FR" posts.
Nope. If she didn't use the resources made available by Fox to deal with perceived harassment (and I heard she didn't) then she's screwed. This case won't go anywhere.
Personally I believe it in part because he seems to love sleeze. He's had porn stars on, he's had nudie web babes on, he's had brainless b list stars on. What other newsman is going to interview a porn star on a hard news program? Why? And he is very defferntial to them, not asking them the most obvious questions: "don't you feel degraded having sex for money" "is there really any difference between prostitution and porno" "how likely do you think you are to get AIDS" "what did you tell your mom" "what will you tell your kids" . From this I take it he sees nothing wrong with porno. Well if that's your feeling then why not ask your coworkers about sexual topics?
The web site is obviously jammed with visitors and it's hard to navigate.
However, I did start reading one passage of a fantasy O'Reilly described of going to a hotel, rubbing her with a loofa (first and only other time I ever heard of one was in Caddy Shack), etc.
Here's my point: this fantasy went on and on. If she had truly been disgusted, why didn't she promptly hang up? I have to assume that either: 1. she really didn't mind; or 2. she was leading him on for purposes of getting evidence for her law$uit.
Note that we only hear what O'Reilly had to say during the fantasy. Was she dead silent during the entire time, or did she, more likely, make some encouraging sounds or statements?
If this ever went to trial, I believe we'd find out that she was far from a totally unwilling victim.
Factor gear dildos are coming soon. Or how about an inflatable O'Reilly doll with two big heads?
bump for later
ROTFLOL ! ! ! ! !
It sure sounds like big head Bill!!!!!!!
No factor gear for her!!!
Oh really
Okay.
This is something I know a little about. I defend these lawsuits all the time.
I've read the woman's sexual harassment complaint, and O'Reilly's extortion complaint quickly.
I don't see anywhere in the O'Reilly complaint where he denies making the comments he is alleged to have made. My guess is that he did at least some of it, and he has no idea what is on tape.
But the sexual harassment complaint is still garbage.
It doesn't even plead all the necessary elements, just the salacious stuff, in order to do the most damage to O'Reilly. And this is still a shakedown, with a win-win outcome for the Plaintiff, who admits in her complaint "ridiculing" Bush, and her lawyer, who is a big Democrat contributor.
The shakedown was timed to put pressure on O'Reilly to pay, even though this woman hasn't even plead a sexual harassment claim. If he refused to cough up $60 million (and what possible relationship does that nubmer have to any alleged damages?), then the woman and her lawyer could use this lawsuit to tarnish Fox and someone perceived as a Bush supporter.
She hasn't stated a claim because she doesn't even allege that she ever complained to anyone at Fox about O'Reilly's behavior. She undoubtedly knew how to complain. If she chose not to, that's a defense to any sexual harassment claim. You can't go for years like this woman did collecting comments that your boss allegedly made, then hit the company with a lawsuit without first giving the company a chance to correct the problem. But that's exactly what she has done.
The only way to avoid this defense is to show that you suffered some adverse employment action. The woman never makes such an allegation. In fact, O'Reilly was very good to her over the years, as is apparent from her own complaint. He gave her raises and opportunities and praised her work. After two years of this supposed "harassment," she left Fox for CNN and more money. Then after four months, she called the alleged harasser and asked to get her job back. O'Reilly got her the job back, and even gave her extra work on his radio show to make up the salary she wanted.
She has alleged "quid pro quo" harassment, meaning that the boss says something like "Put out, or something bad will happen to your employment." I didn't see anything like that alleged in her complaint. In fact, if he was hitting on her, he was very patient. And he hired her back even though she never put out.
Again. This is a complaint that should be dismissed immediately, because it doesn't contain all the necessary allegations. It is garbage, as far as stating a claim of harassment. It is an obvious attempt to do harm at a strategic time.
PS. I can't stand O'Reilly, and I don't have any trouble imagining him saying all the stuff he is alleged to have said. But she still doesn't have a claim for sexual harassment, even if everything she said in her complaint is completely true.
Calling Mark Levin..