The Discrimination Lawsuit Against Fox News, Explained

A former booker for Tucker Carlson makes serious allegations against the network.

By
42
A Fox News reporter's microphone. (Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Despite its $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems and the firing of primetime host Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ legal woes aren’t over yet.* Carlson’s former head of booking, Abby Grossberg, alleges in a federal lawsuit that she endured a hostile and discriminatory office culture at the network. 

Grossberg found herself in a “work environment that subjugates women based on vile sexist stereotypes, typecasts religious minorities and belittles their traditions, and demonstrates little to no regard for those suffering from mental illness,” according to the lawsuit. Fox has denied Grossberg’s accusations and has not yet filed a response in court, and Carlson has not commented on the lawsuit.

The network fired Grossberg shortly after she filed her lawsuit. The explanation given to Grossberg, according to her lawyers, was that she “improperly disclosed information regarding the Dominion/Fox Lawsuit that the Company purportedly believed was privileged.” 

What does the lawsuit allege?

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
42
By
Comments (42)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Lchrisberg

    Seriously, Harvest, this is not the National Enquirer. You just published a cheap smear column with NO EVIDENCE.
    Please learn what a real journalist does and learn it quickly.

    Collapse
    1. BenP

      She's telling us what's being alleged in the lawsuit. You can verify this by noting her judicious use of quotation marks and phrases such as "Grossberg claims" and "the lawsuit says".

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Lchrisberg

    What a load of HS this is. Dismiss the case until Miss Grossberg grows up and can provide concrete evidence for her claims.

    The Pelosi photo was all over social media and the Internet. If Miss Grossberg can't handle the content of the news like a competent adult, perhaps she needs a job as a ticket taker at the county fair instead. Snowflakes have no one to blame but themselves. I'd fire her for claiming that covering the photo was an example of misogny alone. There are women that are truly subject to mysognistic behavior but this is not one of them.

    "The next day, Grossberg says she was called to the office of Senior Executive Producer Justin Wells, who she said asked if her former boss, Bartiromo, was having sex with then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. "
    Ok. And? THAT is the big example of "work environment that subjugates women based on vile sexist stereotypes"? Really? Get some help. Quickly.

    "Grossberg claims that in the fall of 2022, producers “moderated” two newsroom discussions about which of the two candidates for Michigan governor—Republican Tudor Dixon or incumbent Democrat Gretchen Whitmer—staffers would rather have sex with. This occurred right before Dixon was scheduled to appear on the show."
    Surely there is some kind of evidence of that. Let's see it or dismiss it. I'm pretty sure, though, that if there were any we would have seen it by now.

    “It became apparent how pervasive the misogyny and drive to embarrass and objectify women was among the male staff,” the lawsuit says. “No woman, whether she was a Republican politician or a female staffer at Fox News, was safe from suddenly becoming the target of sexist, demeaning comments, such as being called a “c—t.”
    If that is the case, evidence of this must exist everywhere. Let's see it. Anything that is "pervasive" leaves a trail.

    Collapse
    1. Scianti7

      While you strike me as a troll, but I'll still type. The evidence will be revealed after discovery &/or at trial. I remember what Tucker Carlson talked like on Red Eye, and what she's alleging lines up with his own behavior at that time, including his words. He was one of the biggest jerks on that show, & that's kind of saying something. Of course there are unfortunate people in the world who will only consider evidence of what they already believe & dismiss anything that doesn't fit. It's called confirmation bias, & on air planes it is deadly.
      I guess we'll see.

      Collapse
    2. Richard Kennedy

      Oh, I get it. You are one of the Fox lawyers. As I see it, a suit was filed. It was made public. What was made public is reported here on Dispatch. Notably, the judge has not called a hearing on the merits of the case. The judge has allowed to do forward with evidence to come.

      Collapse
  3. Gbm311

    This report fails to mention that Grossberg never met Carlson. If the Fox News office environmental was stressful, then focus on Fox, not Tucker. Grossberg apparently has a history of being difficult to work with. Let the attorneys work this out -- likely a settlement with terms unavailable to the public. I do find some of the comments about the office atmosphere disturbing and inexcusable.

    Collapse
  4. Erik Naft

    I would be grateful if The Dispatch stopped using Vox-style, infantilising headlines.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      The current headline reads “The Discrimination Lawsuit Against Fox News, Explained”, which is simply an accurate description of the piece. There is nothing infantilising about it that I can see.

      I missed the piece when it first came out. Did it have a different headline then?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Cthocas

      It could be worse. I think Kevin's intimidating presence prevents them from running those awful "I'm a half-tree, half-giraffe mutant from Neptune. Here's why conservatives are wrong about gun control." headlines the NY Times is addicted to.

      Collapse
      1. Pbeaupre3141

        To be fair, I would click that headline

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Fyi these Explainer pieces are actually modeled on the Vox Explainer model (someone at TD told me this a long time ago, unfortunately I don't recall exactly who). I appreciate them overall, although they don't always get into the details as much as I would like, I understand that's not their purpose.

      I request the next Explainer delve into the Desantis-Disney fight, as that's very confusing. Pro-Desantis people claim he's winning, while anti- Desantis people claim he's losing. I have no idea which side is closer to the truth.

      Collapse
      1. Dustin M

        I agree, the Disney thing suddenly became very complicated and is definitely worth an explainer... I think Disney should've right off the bat done some kind of viewpoint discrimination lawsuit, and if they had done so they would've won handily and this would be over by now since the decision to revoke the special district was clearly in retaliation to first amendment protected speech. Instead they wound up pretending to be fine with the "compromise" of keeping the district but with the governor in total control of the appointees, only to pull the shenanigan of stripping the board of most of its powers right before the new appointees took over. And only now after all that, they are apparently going the viewpoint discrimination route after all. So now the big question in my mind is, did any of their interim back-and-forth shenanigans legally undermine their viewpoint discrimination case in any way? I'm not enough of a legal expert to know so like you I would definitely appreciate a legal explainer on where this goes from here. Although I wouldn't be shocked if Sarah decides to take this up on AO soon, in which case I will definitely be listening.

        Collapse
        1. Scianti7

          I'm no expert, but DeSantis' reactions & continued threats seemed to bolster their case, to me. And it's weird that the DeSantise folks got upset that they couldn't use Mickey or any Disney copyrighted stuff.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Harvest Prude vertical-nib Author

          Keep an eye out for tomorrow's TMD :)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Aylene Wright

            Thanks for the heads up!

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Fozx News? In the last graf'. Sounds like TheDispatch needs another correction report.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      (very reasonable hourly wage ...)

      Collapse
  6. Mike Giamalis

    Sheesh. Good work Harvest

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Magpie

    Not that I think the lawsuit is without merit, but did Ms. Grossberg think that Tucker Carlson was going to be a kind and thoughtful person who insisted on decorum and equality in the workplace?

    Collapse
    1. Wsampson

      that line of thought is why that behavior continues to happen in the workplace. She should have known. Thus, women can't work there.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Magpie

        What I meant was, Tucker Carlson is one of the most obviously racist, misogynistic and traitorous news personalities ever to appear on cable television. Ms. Grossberg went to work for him, which meant that her job was to support him as he was being racist, misogynistic and traitorous on air. That was her job. Is it any surprise that the work environment was toxic?

        Collapse
        1. Scianti7

          Yet having a work place like that (discriminatory) is against the law. Even knowing it's likely ahead of time doesn't make it legal or ok.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Magpie

            Agreed. That's why I started my original comment with "Not that I think the lawsuit is without merit".

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Dennis

          Without agreeing with your characterization of Carlson (since I last watched him back in his mischievous, cherubic bow tie days), I do wonder why people take jobs they can be fairly sure will make them unhappy. To me it’s like a pacifist joining the U.S. Marines.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Mattjabour

    To think, there are people at Fox who still care about fact-checking and honest reporting. The way they treated her, I'm sure they've flushed most of those kind of people out of their system.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    Thanks, Harvest. Important stuff.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    It's kind of weird, perhaps even tacky, that hotlinked "sources" in this article are mainly other pieces from The Dispatch. Other underlined words lead to Twits.

    Maybe I don't understand the concept. I believed that the links were supposed to give readers information to help them evaluate the accuracy and relevance of facts in the article, but maybe the purpose is to direct eyeballs to favored #Peers.

    Collapse
    1. RedBeardRob

      If an issue has already been covered by a site, I don't think it's necessarily tacky for them to include links to that coverage as a way of saying "See previous reporting for more details."

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        That is a fair point of view. If the point is, "Here's what we said about this topic earlier," then it is.

        Collapse
        1. Raincheck

          I certainly took it that way. This isn’t a click driven, advertising based site. It doesn’t make sense to be driving traffic. They are adding depth to the story for those so inclined.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CynthiaW

            Makes sense.

            Collapse
Load More