Scottie Nell Hughes Wins Some, Loses Some in New Ruling

Former Fox News pundit and Middle Tennessean Scottie Nell Hughes' sexual harassment complaint against the network has been partially thrown out, but — despite the best attempts by Fox's lawyers — the remainder of the suit will continue.

Hughes sued Fox last year, along with parent 21st Century Fox, Fox Business host Charles Payne, Fox’s corporate communications executive Irena Briganti and Fox’s in-house counsel Dianne Brandi. Hughes alleged that Payne raped her and forced her into a sexual relationship for two years, promising to boost her career, and that when she tried to address it with the network, Briganti and Brandi worked behind the scenes to hurt Hughes' reputation. Fox and Payne have denied the charges, saying Payne had a consensual affair with Hughes.

As reported by The Hollywood Reporter earlier this week, Fox's motion to dismiss successfully quashed several claims in Hughes' lawsuit:

In an opinion, [U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley III] writes that travel expenses and the cost of doing her hair and makeup are benefits that fall short of establishing employee status and that any allegations concerning promises to retain her contractually are too vague. Additionally, Pauley won't credit the publicity benefits of appearing on Fox News on a regular basis. ... On the other hand, the judge will allow her to pursue failure-to-hire and retaliation claims based on her status as a job applicant.

The judge comes to the conclusion that Hughes has adequately pled elements of her retaliation claim with allegations including how former top Fox News executive Bill Shine decided that Hughes was to blame for an alleged affair and followed through on threats to end her career at the network.

That noted, the judge is less impressed with the aspect of her retaliation claim that dealt with leaks about her situation to the National Enquirer, opining that employers are entitled to undertake reasonable defensive measures against an employee's charge of discrimination.

Hughes will be able to move forward on the allegation that she would have been hired at Fox News but for her sexual misconduct charge against Payne, but she loses most of the rest of her lawsuit.

For instance, the judge throws out claims asserting that legal affairs executive Dianne Brandi and communications executive Irena Briganti are individually liable for aiding and abetting discrimination. She also loses a defamation claim over statements given to the National Enquirer. The judge says she failed to allege actual malice and damages. And she loses a gender-motivated violence claim against Payne, too.

In all, three causes of action were entirely dismissed, five causes of action were dismissed against Brandi and Briganti, and one cause of action was dismissed against Payne.

However, Pauley ruled entirely in favor of Hughes in an important discovery motion. Fox had sought to depose four men with whom — according to affidavits from a couple of Hughes' former colleagues and a private investigator — she had extramarital relations.

"Plaintiff was a serial sexual predator who pursued liaisons with men she thought could advance her career," Fox's attorneys wrote in one motion. "Defendants should be permitted to obtain discovery showing that her sexual relationship with Payne followed this well-established pattern."

But Pauley said whether or not the affair happened, nothing in Hughes' prior sexual history is relevant to the case at hand. In a scathing order granting Hughes' motion to quash Fox's moves, Pauley wrote:

Injecting this case with Hughes’ rendezvous with non-parties who have no connection to the subject matter of this litigation will only detract the parties — and later, a jury — from the real issues underlying Hughes’ grievance. Defendants’ purported strategy is superficially appealing, but advances a boorish, reductive narrative that Hughes was predisposed to engaging in self-serving sexual relationships. Hughes’ prior sexual history has no relevance to her claims against Payne, or the defense that she used Payne to advance her career at Fox. ...

If Defendants seek to raise the defense that Hughes used Payne to advance herself at Fox, they need only seek discovery from Hughes, Payne, and others at Fox. The prejudice arising from Hughes’ prior sexual history with other men would outweigh what little relevance it may bring to this case. To the extent Defendants seek to draw on Hughes’ reputation for engaging in self-aggrandizing conduct with other men, they may directly depose Hughes, who has “acknowledged in a cover story interview with her home town paper” that rumors of such conduct “have long dogged her career.”

Additionally, the third party affidavits do little to substantiate Defendants’ contention that Hughes had a habit of engaging in affairs for self-serving reasons. The affidavits appear to have been primarily drafted to elicit salacious details about Hughes’ relationships. This information goes to the heart of Defendants’ argument that Hughes’ “sexual immorality would negate her defamation claims.” But the affidavits give short shrift to the defense that Hughes sought to advance her career through these affairs. Each of the affidavits gloss over this point with a perfunctory line unsupported by anything but conjecture.

Hughes declined to comment on the recent actions of the court, citing the pending litigation. But the mention of rumors that "have long dogged" Hughes is a reference to the 

 with the Hendersonville resident in the fall.

"I​ will not dignify attacks from bitter, disgruntled ex-colleagues, especially attacks which don’t pass the smell test," Hughes said at the time.

"It doesn’t matter, any of these outside cases. What happens in this case, is this situation. And what Charles — I don’t want to say the name — what he did —" Hughes paused, tearing up, "— on that horrible night and the two years that followed. That’s what this is about."