O'Reilly Lawsuit
 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...3mackris1.html

O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harass Suit
Female Fox coworker details lewd behavior of cable TV star
OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies. For example, we point you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the whole thing, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation. (22 pages)


My guess is that the defense will argue that he's a neutral, non-biased person and thus unable to sexually harass anyone. And when someone testifies with a position he doesn't like he'll try to get their mic turned off.

If this is true (and who knows? It might really just be a shakedown). He should definitely be yanked off the air.

We'll see what Fox does though. If this thing goes forward, the facts will come out and either it will be a shakedown attempt, or it'll be some real stuff.

The story is not that hard to believe. There are alot of perverted old farts like that...and I hope that justice is served (if he is guilty, that is).

There is a counter suit against the woman and her lawyer which basically says they're trying to extort money from O'Rielly. He says that if he wins, he will donate the money to charity.

Neither of the claims in the suits would surprize me.

In our country, America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

You made some accusation about a man and have no evidence.

It's very easy to believe a woman would want to lie and get as much money out of it.

-Rudey

And there are cases of women crying foul as well. Either way, I think the guilty party should be punished, but I don't think any of us have any reason to make guesses.

*ahem* This is what I said, Rudey :" if he is guilty, that is".

*ahem* In your first sentence you said the story is not that hard to believe. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.

-Rudey

"Its not that hard to believe" in this country, America, does not mean "He is guilty".

Right. Keep on blaming the victim.

-Rudey

Well, I have done some reading, and the lawyer is a HUGE democratic contributor, and also does not take cases under a million dollars... A real rainmaker if you will...

He once won a trial for a man claiming he was fired for being a homosexual, and later the plaintiff stated he was never a homosexual. This guy is the biggest gold-digger in NYC. There have been numerous articles written about him in the past. Morelli is his name. He dropped out of school twice, and I am not sure he ever finished... Might have just passed the bar... Who knows...?

But as far as the case goes, I guess no one will really know. I would hate to doubt the girl if she was truely a victim, but she is going about this in a very suspicious manner.

There are some strange facts though... She went from Fox to CNN and then back to Fox. Her boss was fired at CNN for sexual harassment, and she returned to fox. Why would ANYONE come BACK to an uncomfortable situation? Why were no complaints filed when she left fox the first time? The second time? Ever? Why 60-freaking-million dollars? This is all too strange. Something stinks...

So are you saying it should be ok to fire someone on a PERCEIVED sexual orientation?

But the question is who is the victim?

Is O'Reilly really being extorted, or is he really guilty of sexual harassment?

Could go either way.

I agree. That's why I don't like it when people just say stories like this aren't hard to believe.

-Rudey

No one said that, you interpolated something that wasn't there -

The post said the man sued on the grounds of being fired for being gay - this tells us (outside other information) that it was for BEING gay, not for ACTING stereotypically gay or some other strange inference.

You took it to this next step yourself, I just want you to see that.

The sexual harrassment category is so vague its almost silly.

Its a crime of perception and comfort zones.

In the article i read it sounds like he viewed her as a friend as well as co-worker and so may have spoken about stuff that looks odd to those not privy to the context of the original conversation.

anyone suing anyone for $60 million is in it for the money.

any time i see lawsuits for ridiculous amounts of money like that it makes me sick. even if he DID do what she claims...how in the world can you sue for $60 million in damages? give me a break.

If it's true that he was discussing with her the circumstances of his losing his virginity (blech), among other things, how can that be considered "vague"?

At the very least, it shows a real lack of professionalism on his part if the allegations are true.

The lawyer is sketchy. When I saw him for the first time, I thought he was a personal injury attorney.

Well vague as to what actually contitutes harrassement. One person might feel harrassed while another wouldn't care at all.

He was silly to set himself up for this as a public figure. Even if he thought they were friends, the article mentions dinners outside of the workplace, he should have realized that freely expressing himself could have resulted in giving someone ammunition against him.

Imagine if some of our friends decided to take our conversations with them out of context and use them against us?

Speaking from two different perspectives -- first as a manager of a large group, second as a former diversity instructor for NBC...

I don't care if it's your best friend, your girl/boy friend, your boss, someone you see in the hall -- anybody -- you just don't say anything that can be remotely considered sexual in nature. You don't touch anyone with the possible exception of shaking hands. You don't display any kind of picture with any kind of sexual connotation. No off color jokes. No leering. No sexual comments about other people. No swearing usuing sexual words.

None of the above -- Zip, Nada. Not even a little. Zero.

Even if you're talking to someone and someone else hears you.

Otherwise, you're likely to end up in court.

If you don't believe it's that bad -- ask an attorney.

(ETA, I don't mean you can never touch your girl/boyfriend -- but maybe you shouldn't in the workplace.)

I know you say that and I know people strive for that, but I am betting that it wasn't like that. It sure as hell isn't in my industry.

-Rudey

True. And it never will be like that. But if you really want to protect yourself, you should do everything you can not to get involved.

Managers can get in trouble if they know stuff is going on and don't actively discourage it.

I actually had a situation where an employee of mine was making off color remarks and a woman on the crew took offense. I gave him a verbal warning and he didn't stop. I gave him a written warning in his file and the remarks stopped. Then another woman said he was looking at scantily clad women on the internet. Due to some circumstances I won't get into, I had at least some doubts about that one, but given his previous record, I had no recourse but to let him go.

I'm glad he didn't decide to sue.

Being a manager in that kind of situation isn't a good place to be.

Another lesson. Don't hire passive-agressive women if you can help it. Especially the very sensitive ones.

I think she is full of it b/c some of these incidences occured before she initially left for CNN and then came back to work for O-Reilly. If I was uncomfortable in a situation & I left it, I wouldn't put myself back in that situation.
-Just my $.01648 worth
Mark

i really do not like that guy. i am convinced that something crooked is going on with him.

She is claiming that she told him that one condition of her returning to Fox was that he stop the sexual talk and that it did stop, for about a month, when he started up again. In the same report, I heard she left CNN because sexual harassment issues were causing a lot of people to leave and, although she was not involved, she decided to get out then too.

His lawyers have requested an Emergency something or other, which is asking the court to take possession of any tapes that might exist by Friday. So, if she does have tapes, I guess we'll find out by Friday (if the judge grants the request).

I don't like the guy, but none of us have enough evidence to make any judgments at this point. Time will tell more...

Dee

There was an interview of Ms. Mackris(sp?) and Mr. Morelli on a news program , I can't remember the name, this past Thursday or Friday.

The spin they took was that Morelli was in negotiations for over two weeks on a settlement so it wouldn't go public. The reference to the 60 million dollar amount was allegedly the amount that Bill O'Riley brings to his network in a year. Morelli barely let her get in a word edgewise throughout the interview.

If the tape recorded conversations show that O'Riley was sexually harrassing her, he should be fired.

settled out of court
 

So, they've settled out of court:

NEW YORK -- Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly didn't sexually harass his former producer and she didn't try to extort money from him, according to a statement announcing an out-of-court settlement.

Andrea Mackris had claimed O'Reilly made a series of sexually explicit phone calls to her.

O'Reilly had sued Mackris mere hours before she sued him Oct. 13. The talk show host said he was fighting an extortion attempt because Mackris had demanded $60 million to make the case go away.

The statement did not say whether a financial settlement was involved.

So, given the circumstances of the settlement, my take is that O'Reilly probably did/said some stuff he shouldn't have to this gold-digger, and now they're both trying to get out gracefully.

And failing. Nobody's going to believe either of them.

How about not talking about phone sex w/ another women 20 + years younger then you when you're a married man w/ children. O'Reilly talked so much crap about others being demeaning towards women now look @ what he's done, he's not even refuting it but instead questions her motives. Someone ought to tell that clown if your going to talk the talk you have got to walk the walk the way he's acting like a little bi#ch he should call his show the free spin zone not the no spin zone.

bottom line...
stupidity vs. the almighty dollar.
and the dollar wins apparently.

True, I wish now that O'Reilly will understand that other people are capable of doing some really dumb s#it also......just like he did and he needs to quit being so judgmental.


I swear yet another fool has fallen from his high pedestal of morality.

Now he and Rush Limbaugh can bond over why you shouldn't throw stones if you live in glass houses. :p

...or maybe b/c now everyone knows that their both frauds they can get stoned together. (interpret that as you will.)

Would it have ben better if she was only 5 years younger or 30 years younger? Would it have been better if he was unmarried?

People talk about sex, if that makes you a scum bag . . . wow most of us are scum. And I doubt that being in a relationship precluds sexual talk with others . . .

Marriage does not equal social death . . . at least not to everyone.

But he did talk about it with someone related to his work place, and he knows the risks.

What I'm saying my friend is that a married man should not be having phone sex w/ anyone other than his wife, I mention the age difference only to show how much of a smuck or scum bag O'Reilly really is.... she was young enough to be his child. This coming from Mr.Morals is unacceptable not when he has dug into others b/c of their lapse of all common sense.