OMFG, Olberman played an O'Reilly tape where O'Reilly ADMITTED IT!

[Walt Starr]

Said it's his own fault and he's a stupid guy!

It was recorded on his radio show!!!

OMFG, O'REILLY REALLY IS A STUPID GUY!!! HE FUCKING ADMITTED TO HARRASSMENT ON FUCKING NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO!!!!

BAM, court case goes to the lady with the subpoena. O'Reilly had to have been TOTALLY STUPID to think he could admit to harrassment on a nationally syndicated radio show and not expect it to be used against him!

[gmoney]

1. Details... we want gory details.

[Fluffdaddy]

2. WOW !

[Cha]

3. What did o'lielly say on the tape?

In a Nutshell?

[Walt Starr]

5. He said it was his own fault, that he was a stupid guy

but that he was going to fight it.

It was an admission of guilt and GUARANTEED, it will be presented by the complaintant in a court of law.

[spooky3]

15. makes a lotta sense doesn't it--I was wrong, I harmed you, and now I'm

going to make it much worse by fighting you for telling the truth.

[lefty_mcduff]

7. Audio clip from Mediamatters.org

http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/oreilly-20041018.mp3

[Cha]

29. That's just plain Weird!

He's Stupid all right..you heard from the horse's mouth!

[belle]

31. It's not clear what he means by that in that clip...

I presume he'll later explain it as something like "I was stupid to have not taken a stand against this gold-digging Jezebel earlier," tender-hearted yet stoic guy that he is.

[Ms.Victory]

4. LOL!! I heard the tape.

He is beyond stupid.

[blondeatlast]

35. Welcome to DU! Love the sig line.

:toast:

[Doctor_J]

6. there was something on this earlier

"I was stupid, like all guys" or some such crap. can't wait till hannity gets caught in the sack with lindsey graham.

[Liberal_Andy]

28. oh, thank you VEEERRRRY much!!

It's gonna take like FOREVER to get that image out of my mind.

Thanks again!

[steve2470]

32. huh ? LOL

that was a joke, right ? That would be so fitting since Hannity is such a fascist.

[tridim]

8. Didn't he say just last week

that the allegations were BS and politically motivated? You're right, he just lost his case. Good, now we can quickly move on to the Al Franken threat by O'Reilly and Ailes.

[bagnana]

22. Actually I didn't hear him say they were b.s.

Just that they were politically motivated and a "smear job." I think he was caught on tape and I think he knows he was caught on tape. Oh how I wish I could hear that tape!

[Jacobin]

9. It's now merely a question of how much money Faux will have to pay

Dild O'Reilly will have to lay low for a while to see if this blows over.

This kind of thing threw a serious kink in Jimmy Swaggart's little empire

[Coyul]

10. That was great wasn't it?

I love Keith's show, and a what a brave man Mr. Lieberman was(is, for blowing the whistle on Sinclair), and I never thought I would say anything nice about a Lieberman again-hmmmmm - LOL

Coyul

[AlCzervik]

11. Did you hear Andy borowitz?

"No ones answering their phones because they think it may be Bill O'reilly.

[spooky3]

13. ha--great minds think the same things are funny!!!

[LibertyorDeath]

48. LOL

"Did you hear Andy borowitz?



"No ones answering their phones because they think it may be Bill O'reilly."

[0007]

55. I love the Billy 'boy' O'Reilly photo

Great work!

[spooky3]

12. Maybe he knows they have tapes and other evidence

so there is no point in denying anything. He's just trying to spin it ("boys will be boys").

Did you see the exchange between Keith and Andy Borowitz? HA HA HA!!! Andy says the reason that the presidential polls are really unreliable right now is that people are afraid to answer their phones since it could be Bill O'Reilly!

[Sequoia]

56. Kinda sounds like Ahnold's excuse

What was it he said about the grouping: I behaved badly.

[NewJeffCT]

14. I only half-listened, but

Was he admitting to an affair or to the harassment? News came out today that a former friend of the Makris (sp?) woman said that they had an affair, then she wanted revenge on O'Reilly or something like that.

[yardwork]

45. That sounds like O'Lielly spin

Classic defense strategy in a sexual assault or harrassment case - smear the victim.

[AmerDem]

16. Release the tape, Release the tapes

I can't wait until this women and her attorney release the tapes. O'Reilly thinks he is doing preemptive damage control but once we hear this perv moaning and spanking his monkey he will go down in history as one of the biggest laughing stocks America has ever seen!

Release the tapes, Release the tape!

[sonicx]

17. oreilly is a fucking moran

listen to the lawyers, you freak!!! LOL

[gcomeau]

18. TRANSCRIPT of O'Reilly comment

(By yours truly, off the mediamatters clip):

O'Reilly: "Ummm, listen, it was... I have to say this. I had to protect my family. This is my fault. I was stupid... and, I'm not a victim... but I can't allow certain things to happen. And, eh... and I appreciate your support, we get thousands of letters. But... I'm not a... I am stupid. I am a stupid guy. And every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times... but, there comes a time in life when you've got to stand and fight. And I knew these people were going to do this. I knew they were going to do everything they could to try to destroy me and the channel. And I just made a decision that I'm just going to ride it out, and I'm gonna fight 'em. Because what's right is right."

-Grant

[AlCzervik]

19. To quote O'Reilly

mmmkay?

[Democat]

21. What's right is right? O'Reilly is another "right" wing hypocrite!

Caught in the act like his illegal drug using buddy Rush.

[Cha]

30. It's kinda of ambigous in a way and in another

way it nails it.

[fortyfeetunder]

43. Hail to the new Douchebag!

Move over Robert Novak, Bill O'Lielly is the newly crowned Douchebag!

[yardwork]

46. I think that this part is a confession and it reveals him for what he is:

And every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times...

Vomit! He just admitted that he harrassed her and (wink wink nudge nudge) he's saying that all men do this, they all understand, blah blah blah.

This makes me so angry. Listen up Bill and every other jerkwad of any sex that thinks "everybody does it" and that makes it "okay."

Sexually harrassing people is not ok! Got it? Not ok! And decent people don't do it! Surprise! Most people don't behave this way!

Sorry for the rant but this really makes me mad....

[Skittles]

52. is he saying he thinks all guys are as "stupid" as him?

he thinks what he did was pretty much normal?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. BTW, how's his "children's" book doing?

[AlCzervik]

24. I saw earlier that it had dropped like a rock on amazon n/t

[Julien Sorel]

23. He didn't directly admit it.

This hurts him, but it isn't an out and out admission of guilt. And those of you thinking this kills him in a lawsuit, if Fox has clearly defined and enforced sexual harassment policies in place, and the Makris woman did not use their channels to redress this, it's going to be tough for her to win this case. The fact that O'Reilly is brazenly toughing this out suggests that Fox feels pretty good about the legal end of this.

[Francine Frensky]

26. He just admited he is stupid, which means he might be

brazenly fighting it out because he is dumber than a stump.

And regarding the "fox harrassment policies" angle, listen this is Bill O'Reilly. He's a big deal, big name, big swinger, numero uno, the guy who pays the rent, The Talent.... no reasonable human being with an IQ over 40 would have bothered trying the "inhouse" legal avenues... that would work if Herb in accounting was drooling on her, but are you kidding me, telling Fox management, "It's me or him, who you gonna believe????" It's obvious whose side they would be on. It would be pointless.

[spooky3]

36. yep, the court could say she was not "unreasonable" in her

not reporting it because of what you say and also because their actions since she began talking about it have been quite hostile and that hostility might have been apparent beforehand as well.

Also, the company has to show not just that it had those policies in place, but that they prevented and quickly corrected harassment when it did take place. They clearly did not in her case, but did they in other cases where there is evidence that they knew or should have known about it?

Fox showed with the Franken case that their actions relative to the legal system may not have anything to do with what would make sense from a legal or business standpoint. Other companies may hire good lawyers and HR people and listen to them, but that doesn't mean Fox does. Arrogance and bluster seem to be part of the culture.

[Julien Sorel]

42. Let's look at this in depth for a minute.

The way the law is written, as I recall, management has to either know, or been in a position to know, about the harassment. It's very straightforward: how can management be held accountable for something they don't know about? Once they learn of the allegations, if they do not address them she can sue, sue, sue, and her case would likely be a slam dunk assuming she has evidence.

But it is absurd and actually unfair to hold a company responsible for the behavior of its employees when it couldn't reasonably be expected to know about such behavior. Otherwise this country would grind to a halt under the weight of such suits: every time someone made an "inappropriate" advance to someone else, the company would be sued. It is similarly unfair to say that, because O'Reilly is a big star, he, or Fox, should enjoy less protection under the law than if it was Joe from Accounting doing the harassing.

[spooky3]

49. No, sorry, you are not up on the latest SC case

and you are drawing the wrong conclusions about unfairness. For one thing, employers have a duty to PREVENT harassment and promote a non-hostile environment, e.g., through training and monitoring the work environment, surveying employees, etc., and to correct it immediately when it does happen, especially when the perp is a supervisor and not a co-worker. Did Fox do all this in other cases? Then, was the victim unreasonable in not reporting the instances in her case?

Check out the case below. It is the present Supreme Court holding on the matter. It spells out the tests that I described in my post and others. It addresses all of the arguments you raised and raises additional points that may be helpful for you to know about.

There are rough analogies to other workplace problems. For example, if you are hit by a drunk truck driver, the company employing him/her may well be liable, even though it has a policy against drunk driving and could not have known that the driver was drunk at the moment s/he hit you.

Burlington Industries, Inc., Petitioner v. Kimberly B. Ellerth, No. 97-569 118 S. Ct. 2257

June 26, 1998

Here's a small bit of it, towards the end, that laid out the three conditions employers have to meet to defend their actions. But you really should read the whole case to understand why the court acted as it did.

"In order to accommodate the agency principles of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well as Title VII’s equally basic policies of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees, we adopt the following holding in this case and in Faragher v. Boca Raton, post, also decided today. An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. While proof that an employer had promulgated an anti-harassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense. And while proof that an employee failed to fulfill the corresponding obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing any unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer, a demonstration of such failure will normally suffice to satisfy the employer’s burden under the second element of the defense. No affirmative defense is available, however, when the super-
visor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employ-
ment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-569.ZO.html

[Julien Sorel]

51. This is becoming more involved than it should. However...

The truck driver in your example was performing his or her duties in driving. Person A hitting on person B, however, is incidental to the actual job they are being paid to perform. The employer of the truck driver is responsible for their truck driving because that's what they hired them to do. In fact, the company would be responsible whether the driver was drunk or not, so the drunk part is something of a red herring.

There's also the issue of frequency. People hook up through work all the time. People joke at work all the time. People, especially truck drivers, do not drive drunk all the time, meaning it is far less disruptive to hold companies responsible for what their drivers do than it would be to hold employers responsible for a sexual harassment they were not, and could not reasonably be expected to be, aware of.

Second, I'm kind of being slapdash here, because we are about to get into what is extreme hair splitting considering the milieu. While an employer can be found responsible for harassment under many circumstances, the issue of damages is what decides who wins and loses these cases. Her failure to use any existing channels Fox had set up means that Fox can use what is known as an "affirmative defense," and essentially "lose" the case, yet pay nothing in damages. This is made clear in the case you cited:

An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see FR Civ P 8 ( c ). elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.


Fox is going to use an affirmative defense (almost automatic in these cases), and it looks like they have a strong case here from what I've seen, assuming they have an established corrective mechanism in place. If they don't, they are as incompetent as some of the people in this thread claim.

[sonicx]

27. what oreilly said suggests atleast that something sexual went on

and for that, he's a jerk for cheating or trying to cheat on his wife.

[belle]

33. It sounds like him playing it both ways in that...

So depending on how much evidence the woman has, he can either play it as "I am the target of a groundless smear campaign by a greedy and/or crazy person;" or, "Much like the noble hero of 'Fatal Attraction,' I succumbed in a moment of weakness to this woman's seductive overtures and talked dirty to her on the phone. Men can be stupid like that sometimes, *but clearly it's her fault for tempting me.*" I'm suspecting he'll go for the latter, especially if they do release tapes.

[BillZBubb]

39. Please! Fox thought their case against Franken was good too.

They got laughed out of court. Their lawyers are morons, they think they can steamroll her and that's their entire case. And any claim that she didn't use Fox's "clearly defined" harassment policies will be easy pickings for any skilled lawyer.

[Julien Sorel]

40. Actually Fox knew their case against Franken was crap.

O'Reilly wanted it and pushed for it, and the Fox lawyers did what they were paid to do. Fox sure got a lot of publicity out of it, too.

Murdoch's company is worth billions. Do you seriously think they have hired a bunch of "morons" as attorneys?

[Skittles]

53. Billy

say they have the tapes of him making these calls. Please give us a good explanation of why this MARRIED F*** would do such a thing. And Bill "brazenly toughing this out" - do you not remember that arrogant asshole screwing up filing his LAST lawsuit???

[peacetalksforall]

25. So it's just a matter of $$$$$?

[caledesi]

34. Ol' Bill has cancelled his new book tour. (The kids book) Ha Ha ! nt

[blondeatlast]

37. I have access to a major book distribution database.

250,000 initial print run; it'll be remaindered in no time.

[DuaneBidoux]

38. "It's the 'guy's will be guy's' thing that makes him look bad

That's code of course in male speak for yea' I 'talked dirty' etc. That isn't enough for court, in that sense the tape means nothing, but it is laying the groundwork for his public to be prepared for some real stuff to come out. He must know he's on tape.

[maine_raptor]

41. According to Bill's Statement

"I am a stupid guy. And every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times"


It sounds like "Big Billy" was listening to "Little Billy" way more than he should have. Or being such a prick, was that his "inner soul" talking?

[soggy]

44. oh, she has the tape

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris14.html

here's a transcript of the "alleged" phone calls. o'lielly's lawyer is demanding a copy of the tapes... um, that is, if there are any, of course...

move over pee wee

[humanbeing]

47. O Reilly and the Holy Bible

...he's going to pull the thing from Genesis, like Adam did:

"It was the woman; she tempted me."

I hope bill goes down HARD, i hope he takes Limbaugh with him, and I hope Air America Radio grows huge to bring truth to the torrent of bullshit that Fox spews day in and day out.

[spooky3]

50. Today, Yahoo is reporting that Mackris says she DID report

the harassment to Fox in September.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Bill_O_Reilly

[0007]

54. Bill O'Reilly is now at the mercy of Public Opinion!!

I want Bill to beg and beg and beg and beg and then take a hard left. And then we can tell him to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!