when Ailes is gone I wonder if they'll offer Gretchen he job back. Not that she would take it.
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Gotta love going back to the beginning of this thread. Some said Gretchen was too ugly to be sexually assaulted. Truly a moronic stance to take.
Not just moronic - but shameful. Victims of abuse come in all forms and to dismiss claims due to appearance alone is disgusting. Just look at a few of the posters who made these statements of course...
Word circulating presently that Ailes is out with a $40M goodbye.
'He reclined on a couch in a seating area under a map that had flags of all the cities they were syndicated in,' said the woman, identified as Susan.
'He proceeded to pull down his pants and very gingerly pull out his genitals and said, Kiss them. And they were red like raw hamburger.'
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Ailes may well be a piece of shit in light of recent announcements.
What I do not understand is why didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened years ago? Because they were being paid?
What they were saying in their silence was it is OK as long as I am being paid for it.
Not saying I approve of Ailes actions, quite the opposite. I also disapprove of these women's approval through their years of silence.
Maybe they were worried that people would claim they were too ugly to be sexually harassed and not believe them. Based on this thread, that would've been a legitimate fear.
Also because unless you have video, and multiple complainants, nobody is going to take down the big boss at any company with allegations and even if they did, their career would soon hit a brick wall.
They have anti-disparaging clauses in the contracts and also require arbitration if you have any complaints. So you can't go public, if you do complain its will be decided by a private arbitration meeting paid for by fox, and guess who would never get another contract again no matter the outcome.
The deck is stacked against them from the get go. The only reason she is suing is they did not offer her a new contract so her attorneys believe the anti-disparaging clauses and arbitration parts do not apply anymore. If they did re-sign her she would be stuck under those terms. So right now its up to the courts to see if the case can go forward and if so with so many others coming forward he may have a bad time in court.
Megs onboard. Methinks Ailes is toast.
Anyone still say Gretchen is making a money grab??
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/fox-news-megyn-kelly-accuses-roger-ailes-of-sexual-harassment-report.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103799966&yptr=yahoo
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/investigators-find-roger-ailes-harassment-912519Regardless of when and how Ailes and Fox part ways, Delikat says the company will finish the investigation into Carlson's allegations. He notes that it's extremely unusual that she did not sue the company itself, only Ailes, which could give her leverage to get her job back.
The woman is lying! Steve Doocy?! You have to be kidding me! This guy just isn't the type. No fucking way! It's sad because they always had the Christmas show every year together. Like I said, a big damn money grab.She says Ailes removed her from the Fox & Friends morning show in 2013 because she complained that her co-host Steve Doocy created a hostile work environment by engaging in a "pattern and practice of severe and pervasive sexual harassment." Carlson claims that Doocy mocked and belittled her and treated her as a "blond female prop" instead of a journalist. Doocy isn't being sued.
Good ol' fashioned victim blaming.
So... Bitches be cray, amirite?
They have anti-disparaging clauses in the contracts and also require arbitration if you have any complaints. So you can't go public, if you do complain its will be decided by a private arbitration meeting paid for by fox, and guess who would never get another contract again no matter the outcome.
The deck is stacked against them from the get go. The only reason she is suing is they did not offer her a new contract so her attorneys believe the anti-disparaging clauses and arbitration parts do not apply anymore. If they did re-sign her she would be stuck under those terms. So right now its up to the courts to see if the case can go forward and if so with so many others coming forward he may have a bad time in court.
Because they don't want to be the first one to speak up because they'll be regarded as gold digging whores by people like you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty damn sure you cannot place a clause in a contract that is legally binding that says it is OK for the employer to sexually assault an employee. Or to break any other laws.
Sexual harassment is a civil issue.
Frankly a lot of people are just naive about employment politics, assume everyone else is just as naive as them, and therefore are in no position to assess this situation.
I still say:
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty damn sure you cannot place a clause in a contract that is legally binding that says it is OK for the employer to sexually assault an employee. Or to break any other laws.
Sexual assault is a crime.