Skip to comments.
Fox News Hit with Sex Bias Suit
newsmax.com ^
Posted on 11/08/2005 7:12:48 AM PST by rs79bm
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
The EEOC suit charged that a Fox vice president "routinely used gross obscenities and vulgarities when describing women or their body parts," language that it says the executive "did not use with male employees."
Ok, and this is strange because why? What else do you think men talk about.
1
posted on
11/08/2005 7:12:48 AM PST
by
rs79bm
The suit also contends that the executive "routinely cursed at and otherwise denigrated women employees," telling them to "be a man,"Catherine Porridge's haircut springs to mind...
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: rs79bm
Lack of job security is part of the business. They can fire you because they don't like the color of your eyes. No explaination needed.
To: rs79bm
"We investigated the allegations and charges that were made and found them to be baseless," Steven Mintz of the New York law firm Mintz & Gold told the New York Times. The Slimes automatically makes this story less than credible.
5
posted on
11/08/2005 7:21:12 AM PST
by
Kieri
To: Iowa Granny
The VULTURES are out for Fox.
When you are Number 1 , the Feminist and the New York Slimes want your blood !!
6
posted on
11/08/2005 7:23:54 AM PST
by
Zenith
To: Baynative
The reflections off the anchor girls' exaggerated lip gloss. . .You meant to say 'exaggerated lips. . .and lip gloss'. . .right? It is almost funny; but really I don't care what visuals Fox uses to gain audience appeal. Better info there for sure; compared to the rest of the net/cable. . .I want as many people tuning in as they can reach.
As for the claim. . The suit also contends that the executive "routinely cursed at and otherwise denigrated women employees," telling them to "be a man,"
I guess we will hear from them or the lawyers will. . .(?)
7
posted on
11/08/2005 7:25:23 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: rs79bm
Nonsense! If they have a good pair of legs in a short skirt there is no limit to how far they can go at Fox. They are the industry leader in knee-level cameras, glass tables (not ceilings), and anchor eye candy.
8
posted on
11/08/2005 7:25:30 AM PST
by
Williams
To: Iowa Granny
Except that women are a protected group under title 9. Only "whitey" can be fired for no reason...as long as he is under the age of 40.
9
posted on
11/08/2005 7:26:54 AM PST
by
in hoc signo vinces
("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
To: Baynative
Pretty news babes are a TV tradition on networks and local stations. Our local stations burn through them so fast I rarely recall their names after they are gone.
Only the ones who make the main desk with their name as one of the news team headliners have any staying power. That's the game and a player shouldn't complain when it happens to that player.
10
posted on
11/08/2005 7:27:28 AM PST
by
RicocheT
To: Zenith
"The VULTURES are out for Fox." It's a federal law suit. Why would the Bush Administration go after Fox?
To: rs79bm
Yeah...someone with an agenda is looking for a way to give FOX a hard time.
12
posted on
11/08/2005 7:28:37 AM PST
by
in hoc signo vinces
("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
To: Williams
...and praise God for that.
13
posted on
11/08/2005 7:29:16 AM PST
by
Crawdad
(So the guy says to the doctor, "It hurts when I do this.")
To: rs79bm
Maybe the DemocRATS trying to bring down Fox News BEFORE Slime Clinton in Pres?????
I would think so....
14
posted on
11/08/2005 7:29:48 AM PST
by
HarleyLady27
(My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
To: Diddle E. Squat
ROFL. What's up with that, anyway?
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: rs79bm
"constructively discharged"
WTF? Does that mean she quit? Or that she stopped showing up for work? Or, more likely, that she did such a crappy job FOX stopped assigning work to her?
17
posted on
11/08/2005 7:31:28 AM PST
by
wvobiwan
(Proud Minuteman Project Volunteer - Secure borders, illegals OUT, no 'guest workers'!)
To: blaquebyrd
The suit is based on an EEOC investigation of a claim brought by a former Fox employee, Kim Weiler. If you parse this it does not mean the admin is behind it, just that it has been filed in Fed court.
18
posted on
11/08/2005 7:32:43 AM PST
by
freedomlover
(This Fall a Woman will be the Mother of a Mouse)
To: rs79bm
[The EEOC suit charged that a Fox vice president "routinely used gross obscenities and vulgarities when describing women or their body parts," language that it says the executive "did not use with male employees." ****Ok, and this is strange because why? What else do you think men talk about.]
LOL and right. . .
Of course, it could be worse. . .but could be she was just called a 'boob' or 'butt head'. . .or dumb-a-- . Something ANYone could experience if there are 'problems'.
More to come.. .for sure.
19
posted on
11/08/2005 7:33:05 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: rs79bm
>The EEOC suit charged that a Fox vice president "routinely used gross obscenities and vulgarities when describing women or their body parts," language that it says the executive "did not use with male employees."
>>Ok, and this is strange because why? What else do you think men talk about.
Hmmm. So, the next time
I'm in a WOD thread
and some Manson type
sends a post to me
calling me a ball-less jerk
who enjoys getting
b*ttF*ck#d by the Feds'
jackbooted thugs, does that mean
I can sue FR?
(Don't those FOX women
know that guys talk worse to guys
than they do to girls?!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson