Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harrassment suit.

[michaeledward]

If she really was so offended dont you think she would have said "keep your hush money Im going to court!" ?

Just to throw another angle on it....

No.

One of the reports I saw indicated that, during initial negotiations, which took place throughout September and early October, Fox offer $2,000,000.00 dollars to quietly make the issue go away.

For 2 million dollars, I will let you offend me an awful lot. Go ahead .. you know ... sticks and stone .... insult me .... give it your best shot ...

I'll be watching my account for your direct deposit.


And ... Paul ... he has been 'outed', don'tcha think?

 

[Tgace]

I kinda have a problem with "sexual harassment suits for money"....you either hide a problem behind money or you get false complaints for money.

 

[loki09789]

No.

One of the reports I saw indicated that, during initial negotiations, which took place throughout September and early October, Fox offer $2,000,000.00 dollars to quietly make the issue go away.

For 2 million dollars, I will let you offend me an awful lot. Go ahead .. you know ... sticks and stone .... insult me .... give it your best shot ...

I'll be watching my account for your direct deposit.


And ... Paul ... he has been 'outed', don'tcha think?

Yup, and she got paid for outing him....

the point isn't whether he was 'outed' so much as 'outing him and making him pay (in the social consequence/legal) sense not the monetary sense' in a discussion about principles and evidence/court stuff.

 

[raedyn]

He may be innocent, but in the process of undermining his case/evidence/credibility, lawyers for the woman will be airing dirty laundry, bringing up ancient history, digging into his family background, work/arrest records, college days....

Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....

 

[loki09789]

Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....

Bingo!

 

[Flatlander]

the Big companies may have decided it is best to pay the women off.

I hadn't considered this....maybe the decisions weren't all his to make.

I kinda have a problem with "sexual harassment suits for money"....you either hide a problem behind money or you get false complaints for money.

Me too. Could she not just have charged him criminally, if it was about principle?

 

[Tgace]

Me too. Could she not just have charged him criminally, if it was about principle?

My thought exactly.

 

[raedyn]

Yeah, but the complainant isn't the person whom decides if a criminal change will be laid.

Does this differ from any other law suit? Wrongful death, for example, can be criminally pursued as murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc.

What is the purpose of allowing people to sue - for incredible amounts - about any of the things they sue for?

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, but the complainant isn't the person whom decides if a criminal change will be laid.

Well... True, but not "exactly". The complainant can file a charge with the police who can either summarily arrest or file for a warrant, dependent on the situation, and the defendant arrested and charged. The DA may then decide not to pursue if it doesn't look prosecutable. In a high profile case like this maybe the case would go straight to the DA's office, but if the victim was insistent I think a criminal charge could easily have been initiated.

In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?

 

[loki09789]

Well... True, but not "exactly". The complainant can file a charge with the police who can either summarily arrest or file for a warrant, dependent on the situation, and the defendant arrested and charged. The DA may then decide not to pursue if it doesn't look prosecutable. In a high profile case like this maybe the case would go straight to the DA's office, but if the victim was insistent I think a criminal charge could easily have been initiated.

In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?

The thing to pay attention to is the word 'prosecutable' because it doesn't mean guilt or innocence, it means is there a strong enough case/evidence...'stuff' to take it to court.

The guy could be guilty as sin but there might not be enough 'stuff' that can be presented to make it presentable.

In "Paulie land" I break self defense training into three major arenas:

1. internally (mental,emotional,physical preparedness)
2. Environmental (the threat, the terrain, weather, witnesses, obstacles...)
3. Societal/legal (COURT!!!!!)

Any law suit/charge or what ever is the center of a conflict. One side wants to win by proving the guy guilty while the other wants to win by successfully defending the guy and getting that 'not guilty.' How well prepared are you for that 'battle' is just as important as whether you are 'right' or not.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....

The difference, being, of course, that women who back out of prosecuting their rapists are accusers, who claim to be victims of a traumatic act, while Bill O'Reilly is accused of sexual harassment.

 

[PeachMonkey]

In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?

From http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html:

Sexual harassment is a form of sex descrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Keep in mind as well that courts have held that employers are responsible if they do not curb the behavior of their employees that violates Federal civil rights statues or their own employment policies.

 

[loki09789]

The difference, being, of course, that women who back out of prosecuting their rapists are accusers, who claim to be victims of a traumatic act, while Bill O'Reilly is accused of sexual harassment.

True, but the same "just get it over with/avoid it/shut it down" mentallity could be a motivation in both situations.

 

[Tgace]

From http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html:

Sexual harassment is a form of sex descrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Keep in mind as well that courts have held that employers are responsible if they do not curb the behavior of their employees that violates Federal civil rights statues or their own employment policies.

I admittedly am not 100% on Federal Statutes. A Federal charge would have to be placed with a fedreal agency. Here I "believe" it would be the the EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

At my state/local level, if the elements were met, O'Reilly could have faced Harassment (face to face stuff), Aggravated Harassment (via phone, mail, etc.), or possibly stalking charges. That would have depended on circumstances like; did the complainant tell the defendant to "knock it off" in the past, what was the actual content of the communication, was there an intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent act on the part of the defendant that constituted a crime. etc.

 

[gmunoz]

I had an employee that attempted to hit me with a sexual harrassment suit when I put her on probation as a disciplinary measure at work. I was forced to get an attorney and go through all that garbage just to clear myself for this witch who was only looking for money. Ultimately she didn't win since she had no case, but left me having spent thousands of dollars just to protect myself. Her? No consequences for her actions. Me? Well... it's obvious the trauma it caused mentally, financially, relationally (my wife was great), business rep, etc. I care not to get into more detail.

I was told by my peers to "just pay her off" to get rid of the problem. That I didn't want to go through all the heartache. Although some said that it wasn't an admission of guilt, I just couldn't see giving in to this bully using extortion to get what she wanted.

So with regard to Bill O'Reilly. I have my own feelings about that one. He paid her off and I don't blame him. He said he wanted to protect his family. I often thought I should've done the same. Again, I decided to stand up and fight. Just because I was the employer... Something has got to be done about this!