In a move worthy of its marquee personality Glenn Beck, Fox News has responded to the filing of a civil rights lawsuit against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by suggesting that the lawsuit is part of a political conspiracy to attack Fox News. One could say that the EEOC is now on Fox News' chalkboard.

The EEOC lawsuit claims that Fox News retaliated against one of its reporters, Catherine Herridge, “after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age.” The retaliation allegedly consisted of putting “language in Herridge's employment contract, which was set for renewal, that referenced Herridge's discrimination complaints and was intended to stop Herridge from making more of them in the future” and then refusing to negotiate after Herridge demanded that the language be removed. Because of Fox's actions, Herridge spent months as an at-will employee who could be fired for no reason by Fox.

According to Mediaite's Steve Krakauer, Fox News Executive Vice President for Legal & Business Affairs Dianne Brandi stated that the EEOC's actions were “partisan” and “politically motivated”:

The EEOC's suspiciously timed press release is nothing more than a partisan statement about a politically motivated lawsuit. The suit alleges Catherine complained to FOX News management she was being discriminated against due to her sex and age, and an internal investigation found her claims to be baseless.

Fox provides no evidence to back up its claims, and the facts are not on Fox's side. Indeed, while the EEOC does have a number of Obama-appointed officials, it is an independent agency. Once appointed, the commissioners serve for a five year term, giving them independence from the political branches.

And it's not like Fox and its parent News Corp. are strangers to discrimination lawsuits. In fact, among the discrimination suits filed against Fox News was one brought by the EEOC and settled during the Bush administration. I guess the Bush administration was engaged in anti-Fox “partisanship” as well.

Furthermore, the suit against Herridge is in line with EEOC practice. The EEOC says the anti-retaliation provisions of anti-discrimination laws “are exceptionally broad.” In its compliance manual, dated May 1998, the EEOC states:

The statutory retaliation clauses prohibit any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity.

[...]

The Commission's position is based on statutory language and policy considerations. The anti-retaliation provisions are exceptionally broad. They make it unlawful “to discriminate” against an individual because of his or her protected activity. This is in contrast to the general anti-discrimination provisions which make it unlawful to discriminate with respect to an individual's “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The retaliation provisions set no qualifiers on the term “to discriminate,” and therefore prohibit any discrimination that is reasonably likely to deter protected activity.

The Supreme Court largely embraced the EEOC's position in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White.

And the EEOC has previously filed lawsuits alleging that employers retaliated against employees who complained about discrimination by attempting to limit their ability to complain in the future.