I read through the thing, and I'm having a tough time believing this thing isn't going to be instantly tossed as a matter of law.
She claims "discrimination" but does not cite a single instance of it.
She claims a sexual harrasment "qui pro quo" but never shows in any way how this could be the case. In every instance she claims not to be returning his advances, yet she receives multiple raises, is re-hired after she leaves for CNN, and is given a plum assignment at the Republican convention.
She talks about a "hostile work environment", but almost every instance she refers to takes place outside of work, and she doesn't appear to have complained to anyone at Fox regarding the behavior.
Finally, she claims "damages" but never cites anythign specific to base them on. No loss of income. No psychiatric diagnosis. Nothing.
It's hard to see how this is going anywhere in court.
You are right - there is no LEGAL merit to her claim. That is the real basis for O'Reilly's action against her - that she should have known that there was no legal basis to sue and thus was extorting him.
The facts alleged, however, I think will prove to be true and captured on tape.
It'll make it to court, because he's her employer.
Even if tossed out, though, if she has tapes he's toast.