Who were the women who accused Bill O’Reilly and what allegations did each make against him?
Executive summary
Multiple women accused Bill O’Reilly of sexual harassment, unwelcome advances, lewd comments, threats or retaliation, and at least six women are publicly reported to have leveled accusations; settlements linked to those claims total millions of dollars (sources report roughly $13 million in some accounts and suggest larger totals up to $32M or more in individual payouts) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and later court filings describe specific allegations — propositions, nonconsensual or “unwelcome” sexual relationships, repeated harassment, and requirements in settlements that limited victims’ access to evidence — while O’Reilly has denied wrongdoing and Fox and O’Reilly have disputed characterizations [4] [5] [6].
1. Who the reporting identifies as accusers — names and roles
News accounts and summaries list multiple women connected to The O’Reilly Factor as either staff or paid guests. Named figures in the reporting include Andrea Mackris (a producer), Lis Wiehl (a legal analyst), Rebecca Gomez Diamond (a former Fox Business host), Rachel Witlieb Bernstein (named in later defamation filings), and other former Fox personalities such as Andrea Tantaros and Laurie Dhue in broader lists of accusers tied to O’Reilly or Fox News [7] [2] [4] [3]. Aggregations from The New York Times and follow-on coverage say at least six women made allegations against O’Reilly [3].
2. The kinds of allegations reported
Reporting catalogs a range of allegations: propositions for sex, unwelcome advances, lewd comments and verbal abuse, threats of retaliation or career harm if women refused sexual requests, and descriptions of “nonconsensual sexual relationships” or “unwelcome” sexual relations [1] [6] [2]. The New York Times and follow-up accounts described four of five settlements as involving sexual harassment claims and a fifth involving verbal abuse [6]. One account highlights that complaints included the sending of sexually explicit material to an accuser and repeated harassment [2].
3. Settlements, confidentiality and disputed details
Multiple reports say Fox News and O’Reilly paid settlements to women who alleged harassment. Some sources report about $13 million paid in several settlements; other pieces detail much larger single settlements — notably a reported $32 million payment connected to Lis Wiehl — and reporting suggests combined totals have been reported in different ways across outlets [1] [2] [4]. Settlement agreements have been described as requiring plaintiffs to hand over evidence, including recordings and diaries, and as containing confidentiality provisions; those terms have shaped what has been publicly known and have been central to later defamation litigation by some accusers [4].
4. Denials, counternarratives and corporate posture
Bill O’Reilly has publicly denied the allegations, calling coverage a “hit job” and stating he had no HR complaints during his career, according to his interview on TODAY [5]. Fox’s and O’Reilly’s responses in some instances characterized accusers as extortionists or disputed details; at least one accuser’s dispute with those denials became part of later lawsuits alleging defamation by Fox and O’Reilly [4]. Media coverage and opinion pieces diverge on motive and interpretation — some frame O’Reilly’s ouster as a reputational/financial reaction by advertisers and Fox, not a legal adjudication of guilt [8].
5. Why reporting varies and what’s left unclear
Coverage differs on totals and the number of accusers because reporting draws on documents, confidential settlement terms, defamation suits and on- and off-the-record interviews; this complexity produced multiple figures [1] [4] [3]. Available sources do not mention exhaustive, court-adjudicated findings establishing criminal guilt or innocence for the specific allegations; instead they document settlements, internal correspondence, and disputes over public characterization [4] [6]. Details about specific interactions — timelines, corroborating witnesses, and full text of settlements — are limited in the public record because confidentiality clauses and legal strategies have constrained disclosure [4].
6. What to watch in follow-up reporting
Two lines matter for clarity: outcomes of defamation and related civil litigation, which have already produced disclosures about settlement terms in some cases and may reveal more, and contemporaneous investigations or investigative reporting that can corroborate or rebut specific claims beyond the settlement summaries [4]. Readers should also note the competing incentives: plaintiffs seeking redress and confidentiality, defendants seeking reputational defense, and media outlets balancing public interest with limits imposed by sealed or confidential agreements [4] [8].
Limitations: This summary relies solely on the provided reporting and does not attempt to resolve factual disputes; where the sources differ on totals or phrasing, I cite each account above rather than assert a single reconciled number [1] [2] [3].