What types of misconduct (sexual harassment, unwanted advances, settlements) were alleged against O’Reilly by each accuser?
Executive summary
Multiple women accused Bill O’Reilly of a range of misconduct that reporters and court documents described as propositions, unwelcome sexual advances, lewd comments, threats or retaliation for refusing sex, and in at least one high‑value case allegations described as a “nonconsensual sexual relationship”; Fox and/or O’Reilly paid settlements reported as roughly $13 million to five women and a reportedly separate $32 million deal tied to Lis Wiehl (reporting varies) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The core pattern: propositions, unwelcome advances and lewd comments
Reporting assembled by The New York Times and later summaries show that several accusers said O’Reilly repeatedly made sexual propositions, unwanted advances and lewd remarks to producers and on‑air colleagues — language broadly summarized as “propositions, unwelcome advances, and lewd comments” in contemporaneous accounts [5] [2]. Those characterizations are the baseline allegation across multiple settlements and interviews cited in the press [1] [2].
2. Threats and retaliation alleged by some accusers
Beyond verbal harassment, sources say complaints included threats of retaliation and actual career consequences when women rebuffed O’Reilly’s advances. The teaching summary and news rundowns list “threatening their careers when they refused him” and “actual retaliation for refusing to have sex with him” as allegations underpinning some of the settlements [6] [5].
3. Andrea Mackris: explicit sexualized phone conduct alleged
Andrea Mackris, a former producer, sued with highly specific allegations that included sexually explicit phone conversations and attempts to lure her to private encounters; some reports state she alleged O’Reilly masturbated on calls and described explicit fantasies — claims that were part of the public record around her suit and the subsequent settlement [7] [8] [6].
4. Lis Wiehl: “nonconsensual sexual relationship” and other claims in a large settlement
Reporting singled out Lis Wiehl’s case as exceptional in size and description. The New York Times and follow‑ups say Wiehl alleged “repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her,” a characterization legal analysts interviewed by TheWrap parsed as possibly meaning an “unwelcome” sexual relationship rather than criminal rape — but the phrase was central to why her settlement drew attention [3]. News accounts link a reported $32 million payout to resolving that matter, though reporting on totals and how they were structured varies [4] [3].
5. Five‑woman $13 million package: mix of sexual harassment and verbal‑abuse settlements
The New York Times reported, and news outlets summarized, that five women received settlements totalling approximately $13 million in exchange for not pursuing litigation or speaking publicly; four of those settlements were described as involving sexual harassment claims and one as involving verbal abuse — demonstrating variation in the legal categories used in different cases [1] [2].
6. Additional accusers and lawsuit specifics: lures, “wild side” language, and retaliation claims
Other reporting and lawsuits broaden the catalogue of alleged behavior: one complaint alleged O’Reilly asked a woman to visit him on Long Island because it would be “very private” and told her she could show him her “wild side”; some plaintiffs alleged being removed from the air or otherwise punished after complaining [9]. These details appear in court papers and reporting compiled by outlets like ThinkProgress and summaries cited by major papers [9].
7. Settlement language and confidentiality: evidence control and retraction clauses
Subsequent reporting on settlement texts raised alarm over clauses that required accusers to hand over evidence (audio, diaries) to O’Reilly and, in some instances, language that critics said sought to require renunciations or restrict truthful public statements — a development highlighted when settlement documents were unsealed and reported by The New York Times and analyzed in outlets like Vogue [6].
8. Competing narratives: denials, legal strategy and interpretation
O’Reilly publicly denied wrongdoing and described the reporting as a “hit job”; his defenders and some legal commentators framed some settlements as business decisions rather than admissions of guilt. At the same time, employment lawyers and investigators treated the alleged mix of propositions, unwelcome sex, and retaliation as workplace sexual harassment even when the precise legal label (e.g., “nonconsensual sexual relationship” vs. criminal assault) was debated in the press [10] [3] [11].
9. What reporting does not settle: specifics, totals and intent
Available sources document the types of misconduct alleged and cite settlement figures, butthey do not fully resolve factual disputes about what occurred in each interaction or the legal reasoning behind every settlement amount; multiple outlets note that settlement terms and confidentiality limit public knowledge, and reporting about a $32 million amount and the $13 million package exists alongside differing descriptions [4] [1] [3].
10. Bottom line for readers: catalogue of allegations, legal limits, and power dynamics
The record in news accounts and court papers shows a consistent catalogue: propositions, unwanted advances, lewd talk, alleged explicit sexual conduct in calls, threats or retaliation for refusal, and at least one allegation described as a “nonconsensual sexual relationship,” with Fox and/or O’Reilly paying settlements reported in the millions to resolve these disputes. Settlement language and confidentiality mean public sources cannot fully confirm every detail, and interpretations vary across reporters and lawyers cited in the press [5] [7] [3] [6].