Fox News Getting Sued For Sexual Harassment Yet Again.

Source

There is a very strong case showing that Roger Ailes is a slimeball. I hope that he get's hammered in court.

Not defending Ailes in anyway, but it clearly states, "according to the complaint", so that is one sided and could be 100% true or 0% true and anywhere in between. Obviously something is going on with Ailes based on previous lawsuits and settlements. Slimeball description per i-bman is probably very accurate.

As a point of law, if the complaint is true, is this sexual harassment? It is definitely illegal hiring practices and probably grounds for a class action law suit for many people who applied, and never received jobs because they didn't "put out". However, sexual harassment occurs when someone in a position of power uses the power to subject a person to unwanted advances. If Ms. Curanaj was not an employee, Mr. Ailes has no position of power......unlike Bill Clinton who has a position of power over Monica Lewinski who was an intern reporting through him and he controlled her "advancement opportunities".

From the original Source:
"According to the complaint, Mr. Ailes asked her to stand up and turn around during a one-on-one interview, so that he could “see [her] from behind.”

“I like what I see,” Mr. Ailes then said, the suit asserts. Ms. Curanaj left the interview thinking she would land a job offer, according to the suit."

So, apparently Mr. Ailes is a hiney-man.

..and eco is 100% correct.

I don't know about the private sector, e.g. Fox, but even an applicant for a job at a Fed agency, or a contractor, even if not selected (actually, especially if not selected, and they have a long time after being non-selected to file a claim), has standing to claim discrimination, including sexual harassment. The employee or applicant or contractor may claim reprisal if they believe that failure to put out resulted in non-selection, or demoted, or suddenly given bad a evaluation, on and on the list goes.

When SH bubbled up decades ago, women enjoyed claiming SH if the boss told them they looked nice in the dress they were wearing that day, or if somebody posted a (allegedly) insulting cartoon in the break room, stuff like that.

Finally the Feds realized that many were taking advantage with frivolous complaints taking up everybody's time without being substantiated after investigation, so they tightened the procedure for the supervisor to respond to a claim of 'harassment' though those types of complaints must still addressed. A supervisor can still be disciplined all the way to hell if the seemingly frivolous complainant isn't addressed up the chain, investigated, and resolved one way or the other. It can get very ugly either way, substantiated or not.

A complaint is written from a Plaintiff’s POV or version of events, but it has to be truthful or the attorney filing it faces severe sanctions. Two people often have a different view of the same event, but it doesn't mean either one of them are necessarily lying. The jury's job is to decide what is the most likely the objective truth given the evidence presented.

This is a shock???? Ailes was canned for the harassment, any of this that comes out now is just suing for what he was caught for.

Bunch of gold diggers. What was you thinking.