Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who were the women who accused Bill O'Reilly of sexual harassment and what did each allege?
Executive summary
Multiple reports say Bill O’Reilly faced at least five women who reached settlements over allegations tied to sexual harassment and verbal abuse, with those five settlements totaling about $13 million and an additional reported $32 million settlement to Lis Wiehl disclosed later [1] [2] [3]. Available sources identify named accusers in reporting and describe a range of allegations — from propositions, unwelcome advances and lewd comments to claims of a “nonconsensual sexual relationship” and retaliation — but details vary by source and many settlements included confidentiality terms [4] [1] [3] [5].
1. Who the reporting names as accusers — short list and settlements
Contemporary reporting and later articles name multiple women who either worked for O’Reilly or appeared on his show and who received settlements; The New York Times’ reporting referenced five women receiving roughly $13 million in combined payments and later reporting highlighted a separate $32 million payment to Lis Wiehl that Fox and O’Reilly had disclosed in contract negotiations [1] [2] [3]. Publications including Vogue and AM New York summarize that the group of accusers included producers, hosts and guests tied to The O’Reilly Factor and Fox affiliates [5] [6].
2. The range of allegations reported
Accounts compiled by major outlets say the allegations covered propositions for sex, unwelcome advances, lewd comments, threats or acts of retaliation for refusing sexual overtures, verbal abuse, and — in at least one high‑value case — language described as “repeated harassment” and a “nonconsensual sexual relationship,” plus the alleged sending of sexually explicit material [4] [1] [3] [7]. Reporting stresses that four of the five $13 million settlements involved sexual‑harassment claims and one involved verbal abuse [6].
3. The Lis Wiehl reporting and the $32 million figure
Several outlets specifically flagged Lis Wiehl’s settlement as separately reported at $32 million and summarized the New York Times’ description that her allegations included repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship, and the sending of explicit material; commentators and lawyers debated whether the term “nonconsensual sexual relationship” signified an “unwelcome” workplace sexual relationship rather than criminal assault — but interpretations differ in the coverage [2] [3] [7]. TheWrap and other outlets noted legal analysis that “nonconsensual” in settlement wording may be read within employment‑law frames [3].
4. What the settlement documents and reporting added about silencing tactics
Follow‑up reporting highlighted how settlement agreements sometimes required complainants to turn over evidence and accept confidentiality clauses — and critics argued these terms could amount to efforts to prevent public disclosure, with Vogue and the New York Times coverage noting provisions that restricted what women could say and even asked for preservation or transfer of evidence [5] [1] [2]. Those revelations spurred debate about nondisclosure agreements and whether wealthy figures use settlements to limit reputational damage [5] [1].
5. O’Reilly’s response and competing narratives
Bill O’Reilly consistently denied wrongdoing, calling the allegations “completely unfounded” and described his ouster from Fox News as a “hit job,” while his representatives pointed to affidavits and denials in public statements; Fox and 21st Century Fox also faced criticism for continuing to employ or extend contracts despite knowledge of settlements [8] [2]. Commentary from outlets such as the Hoover Institution and Business Insider framed the network’s response through lenses of reputational risk, market pressure (advertiser pullouts), and due process debates [9] [1].
6. What is left unclear or limited in the public record
Available sources note that many settlements are confidential and that the precise factual details of some encounters are therefore sealed or described variably across reports; as a result, the public record mixes settlement totals, summary allegations, and legal analyses rather than full public testimony [5] [1]. Specifics about every accuser’s name, chronological timeline of every allegation, and full settlement texts are not exhaustively presented in the sources provided here [1] [5].
7. Why context and multiple perspectives matter
Journalistic coverage collected here shows two competing frames: accusers and their lawyers and investigative reporters describe patterns of propositioning, retaliation and gagging through settlements, while O’Reilly and some defenders emphasize denials and point to settlements as pragmatic choices to avoid litigation and publicity; legal commentators also note that settlement language can be strategic and open to interpretation [5] [3] [8]. Recognizing both the limits of publicly available documents and the influence of confidentiality is essential when weighing the reported allegations [2] [1].
If you want, I can produce a sourced list pairing the specific named women reported in these pieces with the allegation summaries each source attributes to them, noting where the coverage conflicts or relies on sealed settlement language (sources above contain overlapping but not identical name-by-name detail) [1] [2] [5].