Fox's employee contracts may mean Gretchen Carlson will never get her day in court

Originally published at:

1 Like

Doesn’t she have a right to a trial? Also aren’t illegal contract terms not enforceable?


This guy always reminds me of the rich people from the movie Society ( That’s really all that I have to say on this topic.



Has Gretchen endorsed Clinton yet?


The new way for corporate America to screw over people.


The NY Times did a very good series on the pervasive use of arbitration by corporations to prevent people from exercising their rights under U.S. law.

Begins here:


This is America! One of our greatest Rights is being allowed to sue anyone at any time for any reason and also complaining about how cluttered and slow and expensive the courts are and demanding tort reform and the right to sign away our rights, alienable or otherwise!


It’s not illegal.

She might have an option if she could convince a DA to file a criminal complaint, but that case would be harder to win.

She’s just suing for damages, he’s not being tried as a suspected criminal.


I think the courts would tend to defer the case to the arbitration process given the existence of the contract, letting it run its course, then she could appeal that to the court on some grounds that the process wasn’t fair or somehow didn’t work as intended.


If you signed a contract to sell your kid or murder someone, that would be unenforceable. If you sign a contact to use arbitration, I think that’s a lot less clear cut. I assume where you are coming from is that maybe you can’t sign away your right to avail yourself of the courts? I think you can.

I think you could still make your case in court in a situation like this, but I think you’d first have to argue about the contract itself in court. So take them to court saying that the arbitration method is unfair (you’d need some very solid evidence) or that you were deceived at the time the contract was signed about how arbitration would world (you’d need to show they intended to deceive you, not that you were wrong). Maybe there are some other grounds. I think it would be a hell of an uphill battle.


And then we wonder why disenfranchised and abused employees go and shoot up their workplace.


Not necessarily, if the other women who are now coming forward with harassment claims against Ailes decide to sue him as well.


It seems to me that the problem here is that sexual harassment is treated as a civil wrong in the U.S.
From what I gather, arbitration clauses would have no effect if we in the U.S. enacted criminal law with respect to sexual harassment such as those in France and China (China is ahead of us on a social justice issue - take note).
The arbitration issue aside, perhaps it’s time we asked our lawmakers to make some laws


Here’s the thing, if she sued Fox directly, they’d probably be able to move the venue.

But since she’s personally suing Ailes wouldn’t that moot the clause?


I read elsewhere (sorry, don’t remember where) a discussion of this in more detail. The reason she is suing only Ailes and not Fox News as well may be that the contract is badly-worded and likely doesn’t prevent her from suing Ailes, only the company.


Seems to me “mutually selected” gives her an equal footing- wouldn’t this prevent the company from stacking the panel with people that will favor them? Couldn’t she just not mutually agree to any panel that didn’t include at least 2 feminists?

Well, arguably it’s because the contract was well worded. A contract with an employer saying, “Look, if you have a grievance with us as an employer then you have to go through arbitration,” is something I can see a lot of people signing. Arbitration might even sound better than court. But if the contract said, “If you have a complaint against us or this specifically named person you have to go through arbitration,” you might well say, “What the hell is that person going to do to me?”


White a book, give interviews. Detail the abuses. When he says you are lying sue him in to oblivion.

I know all this because I watched all of Boston Legal, that’s like four or five seasons of law right there.


My immediate reaction on seeing that cover shot of Ailes was, “well apparently you can put lipstick on a pig.”