Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Th
1.
eW
vs.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ra
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COMPLAINT FOR:
1.
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY/GENDER EXPRESSION DISCRIMINAITON BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BREACH OF CONTRACT WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
INTRODUCTION
Complaint
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, ESQ. (SBN: 168228) LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q. McCOY 703 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: (415) 675-7705 Facsimile: (415) 675-2530 E-mail: mail@mccoyslaw.com
Employment and Housing Act, Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Unlawful Termination, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
II. 2.
THE PARTIES
and Internet Personality, Advice Columnist and Entrepreneur. B. SCOTT identifies his gender identity as transgender. B. SCOTTs gender identity is separate and distinct from his sexual orientation.
3.
At the time of this complaint, B. SCOTT is a resident of the County of Los Angeles.
4.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BET
doing business in California. BET falsely holds itself out as being a Corporation
Th
6. 7.
eW
5.
that embraces global diversity in all of its forms. BET has boasted about maintaining an inclusive workforce and a culture that values all perspectives and backgrounds. The conduct of BET giving rise to the factual basis of this lawsuit occurred within the city of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, which was the location of B. SCOTTs former employment and the locus of the discriminatory acts. Therefore venue is proper before this Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Viacom, Inc.
(VIACOM) promulgates, imposes, and enforces policies, procedures, and guidelines in its wholly-owned subsidiary, BET, which resulted in the complained-of
violations of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Viacom, Inc.
(VIACOM) exercises control, supervision, and dominion over its wholly-owned subsidiary, BET and the employees, managers, and directors thereof, who motivated,
actuated, and/or perpetrated the complained-of violations of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
DOES 1-20, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious
2
ra
Complaint
names. Plaintiff will ask for leave of the court to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein and that B. SCOTT's injuries as alleged were proximately caused by such aforementioned defendants.
8.
herein, each of the defendants were and are the agent, employee and/or servant of
each defendant and committed the occurrences, acts and omissions complained of herein while acting within the scope of such agency, employment and servitude.
Each defendant is responsible for the occurrences, acts and omissions of each other defendant complained of herein.
III.
Th
12. 13. 14.
eW
9. 10. 11.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. On Thursday May 16, 2013, B. SCOTT had dinner with his good friend Mariah
Carey, Rachel McIntosh, Stephen Hill (President of Programming and Specials at BET), Liron Dagan, Randy Jackson, and his wife Elizabeth. At that dinner, during a conversation between B. SCOTT and Stephen Hill, it was
suggested to Mr. Hill that he needed someone like B. Scott for the 2013 BET Awards. B. SCOTT also detailed that he had previously appeared twice on BETs
Stephen Hill agreed that B. SCOTT should have some role as a presenter for BET
at the annual BET Awards Pre-Show, and Mr. Hill asked who had previously booked B. SCOTT for his BET appearances. B. SCOTT told Mr. Hill that Rhonda Cowan, a representative of BET, had previously booked B. SCOTT. Mr. Hill then stated that "I have something in mind that will be perfect for you." Subsequently on May 23, 2013, Rhonda Cowan contacted B. SCOTT and offered
B. Scott the job to be the Style Stage Correspondent for the 2013 BET Awards 106
3
ra
Complaint
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned
and Park Pre-Show. B. Scott was told that he would be the sole host commenting on fashion during the pre-show activities.
15.
During the discussions on May 23, 2013, Ms. Cowan informed B. SCOTT that
Stephen Hill and BET liked B. SCOTT's look from the dinner party. B. SCOTT was not told that there would be appearance restrictions based on gender expression for B. SCOTT.
16.
dress. B. SCOTT`s transgender persona and manner of appearance are well-known and obvious. B. SCOTT was engaged by BET Networks and their parent company Viacom.
17.
From May 23, 2013 through June 29, 2013, there was an ongoing dialogue
Th
19. 20.
eW
the pre-show.
18.
between BETs Rhonda Cowan and Stephanie Hodges, and B. SCOTT about wardrobe and approvals of his outfit for the pre-show. BET and VIACOM had full knowledge of B. Scotts personality and style before hiring him as correspondent for
On June 30, 2013, while B. SCOTT was preparing for the event in his trailer, BET
producers met, talked with, and observed B. SCOTT in his preparation and saw how he appeared (including makeup, the outfit, and heeled shoes). BET staff even took B. SCOTT's outfit to be steamed and readied for his presentation. During the event on June 30, 2013, B. SCOTT was in contact with, aided by, and observed by numerous BET Networks personnel, including stylists, sponsors, producers, and other staff. During the preparations on June 30, 2013, BET`s stylists prepared him for the
show, he wore an outfit that producers had pre-approved a flowing black tunic and black pants. In fact, the night before the show at B. SCOTTs home a BET producer
(Stephanie Hodges) saw and approved the ensemble that B. SCOTT initially wore for the awards show. After dressing, B. SCOTT was escorted to the stage by BET`s production team.
4
ra
Complaint
B. SCOTT had previously appeared on BET's 106 and Park twice. On both
21.
After his first segment, B. SCOTT was literally yanked backstage and told that he
"wasn't acceptable." B. SCOTT was told to mute the makeup, pull back his hair and that he was forced to remove his clothing and take off his heels; thereby completely changing his gender identity and expression. They forced him to change into solely
Mens clothing, different from the androgynous style of dress hes used to, which he
was uncomfortable with. BET and VIACOM made him feel less than his colleagues and made him feel that something was wrong with him as a person.
22.
Adrienne Bailon.
23.
that someone on-site from BET had made the decision to pull B. SCOTT from his
duties on account of his transgendered appearance [and that the sponsor corporation
Th
26. 27.
eW
did not make or approve that decision].
24.
BET and VIACOMs actions publicly and privately humiliated B. SCOTT, and
subjected him to ridicule and unfair treatment on the basis of his gender identity and sexual orientation.
25.
representative made a few phone calls and B. SCOTT was added back at the very end of the show in a diminished capacity as co-host alongside Adrienne Bailon. He
was added back to the show only after a complete change in his wardrobe and appearance.
This action was too little and too late to prevent substantial harm to B. SCOTT`s
public persona and reputation, or to prevent or ameliorate the substantial emotional distress that he was subjected to by the events. Plaintiff is informed and believe that other presenters/correspondents (i.e. such as
Angela Simmons) were given substantial budgets, while B. SCOTT was not given a budget at all and was never paid.
ra
5
Complaint
28.
financial remuneration for their work, either directly or indirectly, which was denied to B. SCOTT on the basis of his gender identity, gender expression, and/or sexual orientation.
29.
Therefore, B. SCOTT was clearly mistreated on account of his gender identity and
makeup, clothing, or footwear at any time during the pre-show or BET awards. BET has had hordes of females twerking in mini skirts, sparkly bras and other red
carpet/stage wear, without incident. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believe that
Th
32. 33.
eW
30. 31.
Plaintiff is informed and believe and it is well known that BET has been criticized
for promoting, in programming, blatant sexism and anti-intellectualism and further intentionally promoting anti-black stereotypes. After discussions with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
(GLADD), BET made the following statement regarding the incidents what they characterized as an apology:
from both parties. We regret any unintentional offense to B. Scott and anyone within the LGBT community and we seek to embracing all gender expressions. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BET and VIACOM has had a series of
incidents with gay, lesbian and transgender individual and that the Defendant Corporations do not embrace all gender expressions. On or around July 8, 2013, B. SCOTT filed a California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing complaint against BET for the forms of discrimination alleged herein, and obtained a right to sue letter.
IV.
ra
CAUSES OF ACTION
6
discrimination occurred because B. SCOTTs gender identity and expression did not
Complaint
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER EXPRESSION Government Code 12940(a)
34. 35.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. B. SCOTT was employed by BET Networks for the purposes of the 106 and Park
performed were such that a reasonable person would expect valuable consideration for their performance.
37.
B. SCOTT initially thought that he was going to get paid for the job and that they
Th
40.
eW
had a budget for him.
38. 39.
budgets and wardrobe for their presentation, while this equal compensation was denied to B. SCOTT on the basis of his status within protected classifications. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice
of unlawful gender identity and/or gender expression discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter "FEHA") in connection with B. SCOTT 's wages, benefits, work assignments, promotion opportunity, training, and the terms and conditions of B. SCOTT's employment, and by participating in, sanctioning, or ratifying the age-based disparate treatment and/or discriminatory working conditions. Further, as stated above, B. Scott was made to mute his makeup, pull back his hair, forced to wear solely mens clothing on set, and prohibited from wearing high heels. No other individual had any such restrictions placed upon them while performing their job as Style Stage Correspondent for the 2013 BET Awards 106 and Park Pre-Show. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the
7
discriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and Complaint
ra
participated in the discrimination. As a result of the hostile and offensive work environment perpetrated and maintained by Defendants, and Defendants' failure to protect B. SCOTT from further discrimination, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation and loss of income.
41.
B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that he was disparately
treated during his employment at BET because of his gender identity and expression thereof.
42.
B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in addition to the
practices enumerated above, Defendants, each and all of them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against B. SCOTT, which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to B. SCOTT, Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint in those regards.
Th
45. 46.
eW
43. 44.
discrimination against B. SCOTT, and the failure to act by Defendants, B. SCOTT has suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. B. SCOTT is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in the
conscious disregard of B. SCOTT's rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants in order to punish and make an example of each of them. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION Government Code 12940(a)
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. B. SCOTT was employed by BET Networks for the purposes of the 106 and Park
Pre-Show. B. SCOTT received compensation from such work in the form of services, transportation, goods, and directly-provided, not otherwise available publicity.
47.
ra
Complaint
performed were such that a reasonable person would expect valuable consideration for their performance.
48.
B. SCOTT initially thought that he was going to get paid and that they had a
budgets and wardrobe for their presentation, while this equal compensation was denied to B. SCOTT on the basis of his status within protected classifications.
50.
Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice
of unlawful sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter "FEHA") in connection with B. SCOTT's wages,
benefits, work assignments, promotion opportunity, training, and the terms and
Th
53.
eW
conditions.
51.
At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the
discriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and participated in the discrimination. As a result of the hostile and offensive work environment perpetrated and maintained by Defendants, and Defendants' failure to protect B. SCOTT from further discrimination, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation and loss of income.
52.
B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that he was disparately
treated during his employment at BET because of his sexual orientation. B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in addition to the
practices enumerated above, Defendants, each and all of them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against B. SCOTT, which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to B. SCOTT, Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint in those regards.
ra
9
Complaint
54.
discrimination against B. SCOTT, and the failure to act by Defendants, B. SCOTT has suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. B. SCOTT is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
55.
Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in the
conscious disregard of B. SCOTT's rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants in order to punish and make an example of each of them. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Civil Code 51 et seq.
56. 57.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. B. SCOTT is, was known to Defendants as, and was readily recognizable as both
Th
61. 62. 63.
eW
58.
against B. SCOTT.
59.
Defendants violated B. SCOTTs rights under California Civil Code Section 51.5
by discriminating, boycotting, blacklisting, or refusing to contract or trade with B. SCOTT on account of his characteristics of sexual orientation and/or gender, and/or gender expression, which are characteristics protected thereunder by inclusion in Civil Code Section 51(b) and 51(e).
60.
damages as set forth elsewhere within this complaint. Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in the
conscious disregard of B. SCOTTs rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants in order to punish and make an example of each of them. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. B. SCOTT and Defendants entered into an implied contract for services.
10
ra
Complaint
64.
B. SCOTT performed (or was excused from performing) all (or substantially all)
All conditions required for Defendants performance under the contract were met. Defendants breached the implied contract for services.
Defendants breached the implied contract for services by, inter alia, failing to
Th
74.
eW
70. 71.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. B. SCOTT was unlawfully constructively discharged as a result of the
fundamental alteration of his terms and conditions of employment due to the discrimination he suffered.
72.
based upon Defendants violation of public policy, including but not limited to, the fundamental public policies against discrimination based on his gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
73.
income, loss of promotions, loss of career opportunities, and loss of tangible job benefits, all in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently
and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure B. SCOTT, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of B. SCOTTs rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. B. SCOTT is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
11
ra
Complaint
Defendants breached the implied contract for services by, inter alia, breaching
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BET by and
through its agents, employees, decided without regard to the health and safety of B. SCOTT, and all and each of them treated B. SCOTT in the deplorable manner
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, standing in
a position of authority over B. SCOTT, acted with deliberation without regard to the health, safety, or well-being of B. SCOTT and caused him severe emotional and physical distress.
78.
Th
1. 2. 3. 4.
eW
79. V.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a proximate result of
Defendants extreme and outrageous acts, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional distress in the form of humiliation, embarrassment, mental-anguish, anxiety, stress and indignation. Defendants acts were done with the willful knowledge that B. SCOTT could suffer severe harm as a result thereof. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants acts alleged
herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of B. SCOTTs rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants in order to punish them and make an example of their actions. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows: For general damages in an amount in excess of two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000.00) and in no event in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit of this court; For special damages in amounts according to proof; For punitive damages in amounts according to proof; For attorneys' fees as provided by law;
12
ra
Complaint
alleged herein. That treatment and its surrounding consequences constituted extreme
5. 6. 7.
For interest as provided by law; For cost of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN McCOY
Th
13
eW
Complaint
ra
__________________________ WAUKEEN McCOY, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BRANDON SESSOMS, a.k.a. B. SCOTT