Hairstylists lawsuit against Fox, Skip Bayless

The Fox Sports hairstylist who alleged that longtime sports activities discuss show host Skip Bayless made undesirable inappropriate advances toward her has tried to have her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed, only to be rebuffed by the court.

The request is an indication the events have reached a settlement, said Edson McClellan, a lawyer with Rutan & Tucker who specializes in high-stakes civil and employment litigation. In addition to Bayless, defendants embody Fox Corp. and two extra high-profile former staff at Fox Sports — commentator Joy Taylor and government Charlie Dixon.

McClellan said the submitting for dismissal by plaintiff Noushin Faraji “is a strong indication that a settlement has been reached.”

The court rejected the request for dismissal because, in addition to Faraji alleging inappropriate battery, retaliation and wrongful termination, the lawsuit added a class motion criticism alleging that Fox engaged in “unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices” by failing to pay minimal wages, reimburse business bills and pay severance to other staff as effectively.

For the settlement with Faraji to happen, her attorneys must either refile the lawsuit without the category motion criticism or file a declaration explaining why the person criticism needs to be dismissed while the category motion criticism continues to transfer ahead, according to Alexander R. Wheeler, a accomplice with the Parris Law Firm.

“The judge sits in an advisory, almost fiduciary relationship with those who stand to benefit from the class action,” Wheeler said. “If the case was settled to the single plaintiff, the judge might say, ‘Hold on, what’s the deal with the class action?’ Judges do not want plaintiffs using the threat of class action to extract a better settlement.”

Faraji’s allegations in the 42-page lawsuit in January had severe penalties for Bayless, Taylor and Dixon. All three had been fired, although Taylor and a lawyer for Dixon said their employment with Fox ended for causes other than the lawsuit.

“For over a decade at Fox, Faraji was forced to endure a misogynistic, racist, and ableist workplace where executives and talent were allowed to physically and verbally abuse workers with impunity,” the lawsuit alleged.

Faraji accused Bayless, 73, of offering her $1.5 million to have intercourse with him. Bayless labored at Fox Sports from 2016 until 2024, when his show “Undisputed” was canceled after a dip in rankings coincided with the departure of his co-host, former NFL star Shannon Sharpe.

In a separate case, Sharpe in July reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with a lady who accused the Hall of Fame tight end of inappropriate assault and battery. Sharpe was fired as a commentator on ESPN’s “First Take” after the settlement was accomplished.

Faraji’s lawsuit alleges that Dixon made an undesirable go at her during a party for Taylor at a Hollywood restaurant in 2017. Faraji told Taylor about the episode, but Taylor responded by saying, “Get over it,” stating that “she herself only had her job because of Mr. Dixon and that Ms. Faraji only had her job because Ms. Taylor requested her,” and “she warned that Mr. Dixon could take both away,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also particulars an alleged ongoing affair between Taylor and Dixon as effectively as a romantic relationship between Taylor and another Fox co-host, Emmanuel Acho.

On the “Hot Mics With Billy Bush” podcast a few days in the past, Taylor said the allegations weren’t the explanation she was let go by Fox.

“I will say that that situation and that suit had nothing to do with the changes that happened at FS1,” she said. “I mean, I think from a logical standpoint, everyone can just look at it and see what the changes were and that there were three shows that were cut.”

In a court submitting denying Faraji’s allegations, Taylor’s attorney wrote that her consumer “welcomes the opportunity to publicly prove that her inclusion in this action is improper.”

Faraji accused Dixon, the FS1 government producer of content, of inappropriate harassment. Former community anchor and reporter Julie Stewart-Binks also accused him in a separate lawsuit.

An attorney for Dixon said in a assertion emailed to The Times in April that his consumer had been told by Fox Sports “that he was being let go for violating company policy” in a matter that had nothing to do with the lawsuits.

“According to the network, Mr. Dixon did not disclose to human resources or the legal department that a third-party production company had hired his wife as a temporary freelancer,” attorney John Ly wrote.

Bayless denied “each and every allegation” made by Faraji in a court submitting in February, asserting that he “acted with a good faith belief that he had good cause to act as he did” and none of his actions “were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent.”

Faraji alleged that Bayless made repeated undesirable advances toward her during and after she gave him weekly haircuts, and he provided to pay her for intercourse.

“Mr. Bayless began finding excuses to touch Ms. Faraji,” the lawsuit states. “He would give her lingering hugs after each haircut, putting his body against her own, pressing against her breasts. He then began to kiss her on her cheeks. Ms. Faraji was uncomfortable by the physical contact and would make excuses to leave right after the haircuts.”

In July 2021, the lawsuit states, Faraji explained to Bayless that she was present process biopsies to decide whether or not she had cancer. “Mr. Bayless then grabbed her hands, began kissing them, and offered her $1.5 million to have sex,” according to the lawsuit. “Approximately one week later, Mr. Bayless made another advance at Ms. Faraji. Ms. Faraji responded: ‘Skip, stop, you have a wife.’”

Lawyers for Fox and the defendants went through mediation in March but couldn’t resolve the case, according to a court submitting in April. Faraji’s attorneys wrote that “while the parties did not resolve at mediation, they are continuing to engage in settlement discussions with the mediator.”

Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor, said a settlement seemingly could be imminent once the category motion portion of the lawsuit is addressed to the decide’s satisfaction and the person criticism is dismissed. Non-disclosure agreements might keep the small print from being made public.

“We don’t know who is paying what,” she said. “Were admissions involved? So many cases like this involve non-disclosures. But having gone through mediation, it sounds like they went a long way toward reaching a settlement, and they are at that stage now.”