Create enough embarrassment, and either Fox writes a big check to make Gretchen go away, or James and Lachlan use the bad publicity as cover for what they are rumored to want to do anyway: Fire Roger.
Beyond the legal details, suing Roger specifically and not Fox leaves the door open for Gretchen to rejoin Fox once this is all done.
So a bunch of corporate mouth pieces that helped screw over millions of people can/are being screwed over by that corporation. It’s hard to sympathize with the victim here.
Everyone has a right to a jury trial, but people can voluntarily waive that right (e.g. see plea bargains). Fox News claims that the Carlson waived her right to sue Ailes when she signed her contract with them. I’m not familiar enough with either her contact or the current state of the law say how strong that claim is here (I’m also not lawyer)
I’d also note that the Supreme Court rulings that support binding arbitration in employment contracts isn’t based on the Constitution, it’s based on a broad interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. Congress could in theory amend the law and, say, exclude .employment contracts.
I point this out because it comes up too little in discussions of things like tort reform:
One of the primary purposes served by letting people sue each other is to effectively reduce violence in the community. A litigious society is a society that resolves its problems with words.
There may be interesting machinations going on here. Bill O’Reilly was sued for similar reasons some years ago. The suit was quickly settled for an amount rumored to be in the high 7 figures.
This one is rather conspicuously not on the path to settlement. One wonders why. Ailes is a protege of Murdoch Senior, but Murdoch Senior no longer directly controls much of Fox. His sons are known to want Fox to ditch the propaganda and become more mainstream. Ailes is not likely to favor this given his past as a vicious Republican shill. So one wonders if this is the first step in easing the degenerate old blob out to pasture.
[quote=“pjcamp, post:29, topic:81343”]
easing the degenerate old blob out to pasture
[/quote]…where there are many other disgusting blobs of shit festering away. Thought I could offer a finishing touch to a nice idea. Perhaps someone more adroit than I am could plaster that slack-jawed face onto a pastoral setting already freckled with bovine by-products
I agree with your general point, but you can’t blame this one just on the Supreme Court. Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act lo these many years ago to encourage alternative dispute resolution (because it’s cheaper for the taxpayer than having a court hear commercial disputes). Arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” under the language of the statute, 9 USC 2, and if somebody refuses to arbitrate the other party can get a court order to force them to arbitrate, 9 USC 4. Parties fight over the applicability of arbitration clauses all the time–it certainly sounds like there’s some wiggle room here regarding whether this is a matter that arises out of the employment contract–but plaintiffs by and large lose those disputes.
I must have missed when Hillary stood up to Corporate America and pledged to end binding arbitration clauses. I suppose it might have been in one of those $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs.
She and Trump stand together on this particular view.
So what happens if they cannot mutually select the three member arbitration panel? Given the bias that they seem to show towards the employer, you could make an argument that you naturally want to select panel members that are going to by sympathetic to your cause, just as the employer is, and the clear bias shown in arbitration makes the requirement to use binding arbitration unfair.
I must have missed the Constitutional point that allows a president to overrule and act of Congress and a Supreme Court decision. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
