Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CaptainK

I think she named them to try to show a pattern of her complaining about sexual advances or comments made to her and the company reacting by demoting her and taking her off the air while not seeming to do anything to the people who she complained about. The lawsuit seems to be targeted entirely at the people at the company who reduced her job duties and airtime. Makes sense since the changes to her job are what resulted in the negative financial impact to her.

So while Scott Brown may have created a “hostile environment” he wasn’t the one who made the decision to take her off the air. She doesn’t seem to blame O’Reilly himself for taking her off of his show after he made his alleged sexual advances, but seems to claim it was the same Fox departments who took her off The Five and eventually off the air entirely. And she holds Ailes responsible since they work for him. She doesn’t seem to have any evidence Ailes gave the orders, but seems to believe it and imply it.

There are two ways to look at all this. She had some sexual advances or comments made to her, particularly by Ailes, and when she declined, he set in motion a series of events designed to demote her, lower her profile on the network and eventually take her off the air. Or, she made complaints about a lot of things that the network either didn’t believe or thought were minor issues, they got tired of dealing with it, and sought to force her out of her job.

The big problem for the network is they don’t have good reasons to show why they demoted her. The story they’re using about her book not being approved is pretty much shattered in her brief as she documents where she did tell them about the book. So it looks like they’re trying to cover up the reason they wanted her out. And that looks like a smoking gun that the network knew they were in the wrong. Reacting to any sexual harassment complaints, even if they are minor or unsubstantiated, by demoting an employee is going to look very bad in the eyes of the law.


126 posted on 08/26/2016 11:46:12 AM PDT by JediJones (Social conservatism is the root of all conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: JediJones
I agree with everything you say about Ailes, however I have a problem with hostile environment claim in regards to Brown and O’Reilly. It wasn't hostile, it was clumsy flirting, which isn't any level of crime as far as I'm concerned

And I do have to chuckle at the fact that she is now dating the plower of a thousand groupies, Dave Navarro. I'm sure they all had to do the spin that so upset Andrea.

128 posted on 08/26/2016 12:24:47 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson