Replies

The extraordinary and outrageous $600 million damages claim bore no relationship to the allegations. Mackris even conceded in the draft complaint that she: (a) thanked O’Reilly for dinner after he supposedly made the inappropriate comments to her of which she now complains; (b) had dinner and cocktails with O’Reilly on several occasions thereafter both alone and with others; (c) left Fox to go to its major competitor CNN for more money, a reason unrelated to O’Reilly, and she later sought to return to work with O’Reilly if he would match her salary at CNN. She also admitted in the draft complaint that after leaving Fox and while working for CNN in 2004, she went to dinner with O’Reilly and then alone with him to his hotel room to watch a presidential press conference. She further conceded that nothing untoward occurred in his hotel room.

The claimed damages are also inexplicable given that: (a) Mackris does not allege that O’Reilly ever touched her in any way, much less assaulted her, (b) she does not allege that she suffered any adverse employment action such as a demotion or loss of pay or even threatened with an adverse action, and (c) she does not allege that she complained to Fox’s Human Resources Department about harassment, notwithstanding that Fox and News Corp maintain written harassment prevention policies and complaint procedures. In fact, Mackris did not complain prior to the delivery of the letter, and Mackris acknowledged during the meetings with Morelli and the News Corp and Fox representatives that O’Reilly never touched her in an inappropriate manner.

******

From April 2000 through January 2004, Fox employed Mackris as an Associate Producer on The O’Reilly Factor, a cable television news show hosted by O’Reilly. O’Reilly and Mackris maintained a good and productive working relationship for the almost four years of her initial employment. She even stayed on after saying in 2002 that she intended to leave Fox for a higher-paying job unless O’Reilly and Fox agreed to increase her compensation, which they did. Then in January 2004, Mackris ultimately decided to leave the show to accept an even higher-paying position with CNN, Fox’s major competitor. A few months after leaving Fox, however, Mackris spoke with O’Reilly and expressed unhappiness with her new job at CNN. She said that her boss at CNN had been terminated for sexual harassment, and asked O’Reilly if she could return to The O’Reilly Factor at the higher salary she then earned at CNN. Mackris returned to Fox in July 2004 as an Associate Producer for The O’Reilly Factor at a salary of $93,200.

Prior to September 29, 2004, Mackris never complained to anyone in authority at Fox about sexual harassment by O’Reilly, despite having received and being well aware of the clearly written harassment prevention policies and procedures of Fox and its ultimate parent, The News Corporation Limited (“News Corp”). Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of Fox’s harassment policy contained in its Employee Handbook, which Mackris received when hired. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the “Equal Employment Opportunity And Unlawful Harassment” section of News Corp’s “Standards of Business Conduct,” which Fox reissued to Mackris and its other employees on or about September 8, 2004.

On September 29, 2004, however, Defendant Morelli, Mackris’s attorney, sent a letter to several executives of Fox and News Corp which is attached as Exhibit C. Morelli stated in his letter that he represented a Fox employee who was allegedly being harassed by “one of Fox’s most prominent on-air personalities.” Although he did not identify O’Reilly or Mackris by name in the letter, Morelli wrote that he and the Fox employee were then prepared to sue Plaintiffs, and therefore a settlement discussion would be in Plaintiffs’ best interests because the lawsuit “would be extremely damaging to both Fox’s reputation and the reputation of the individual involved.”

Fox and News Corp representatives spoke with and met several times with Morelli and his associate, David S. Ratner. Mackris attended one of the meetings. At those meetings and during telephone conversations, Defendants demanded $60 million in hush money to keep quiet and never once lowered this outrageous, extortionate demand. At one of the meetings, Morelli allowed the Fox and News Corp representatives to read a draft of a harassment complaint (“the draft complaint”) that he threatened to file on Mackris’s behalf. The draft complaint contained several lengthy block quotes of statements that O’Reilly allegedly made to Mackris. The length of the quotes and the specific verbiage used made it appear that Mackris was taping O’Reilly during the conversations. Morelli, though, refused to permit the Fox and News Corp representatives to have a copy of the complete draft complaint, providing them only with an excerpt.

The draft complaint does not assert that either Fox or O’Reilly has caused Mackris to suffer any adverse employment action. Nor does it assert that Mackris complained to anyone in authority at Fox about any unwelcomed or inappropriate conduct by anyone. Moreover, Defendants never claimed otherwise in any of the aforementioned telephone conversations or meetings.

Further underscoring the extortionate nature and intent of Defendants’ conduct, Morelli holds himself and his firm out as employment law specialists. He therefore must be presumed to know that given the absence of any adverse employment actions taken by Fox or O’Reilly against Mackris (e.g., termination, demotion, reduction in salary), her failure to complain to Fox’s Human Resources Department about O’Reilly alleged harassment will be fatal to her harassment claims in accordance with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of New York.

Morelli also knows that there is no possible justification for seeking a $60 million settlement of his client’s claims even if the alleged few conversations occurred. For example, the Morelli Firm’s website boasts of major victories in employment discrimination and harassment cases none higher, though, than “$3.75 million for a woman forced to have sexual relations with her boss” (Exhibit D), which plainly involved conduct far more egregious than that alleged by Mackris. Accordingly, Morelli and presumably Mackris know that their demand that Fox pay $60 million to keep this matter out of the court and out of the media is nothing short of attempted extortion.

The extortive nature of Defendants’ demands and the baseless nature of Mackris’s claims are further revealed by the recent September 7, 2004 e-mail that Mackris sent to a friend at CNN who asked, “How are things?” Just three weeks before Morelli’s September 29 letter and years after her claimed tribulations began, Mackris responded:

to answer your question, things are: wonderful, amazing, fun, creative, invigorating, secure, well-managed, challenging, interesting, fun and surrounded by really good, fun people. i’m home and i’ll never leave again.

A copy of Mackris’s September 7, 2004 e-mail is attached as Exhibit E.

It is apparent that Defendants’ outrageous monetary demand is motivated by their greed and also by Morelli’s political connections. Morelli, his firm, and his wife, Arlene, are known supporters of and contributors to the Democratic Party, contributing to the campaigns of U.S. Senators John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, and Charles Schumer, among others. He perceives Fox and O’Reilly as politically conservative and supporters of the Republican Party. If he does not receive his share of $60 million, he would like nothing more than to embarrass and tarnish the reputations of Fox and O’Reilly.

The extortion attempt is timed to cause the maximum disruption and damage to Fox and O’Reilly. Fox News coverage and O’Reilly’s program in particular have consistently drawn higher ratings during election periods, and the upcoming, tightly-contested Presidential election between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush has been drawing record-setting ratings for The O’Reilly Factor and Fox News Channel programming. In fact, Fox News Channel is the most highly rated cable news network in the United States and has continued to increase its lead over CNN in recent years. Its expectation has been that viewership, and thus revenues, will continue to increase, particularly as the electorate becomes even more involved with the presidential race.

By sending the September 29, 2004 demand letter and threatening to bring suit within “five business days” over alleged harassment that allegedly commenced more than two years earlier in May 2002, Mackris and Morelli have sought to extract maximum leverage against Fox and O’Reilly right before the presidential election.

Defendants have not acted in good faith. Instead, they have sought to extort “blood money” by threatening to destroy O’Reilly, his family and his career, and to embarrass and severely injure Fox’s reputation and financial interests. Accordingly, judicial intervention is required.

http://www.drudgereport.com/fox.htm