Latest news with #Plaintiffs
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Ex-‘Doctor Odyssey' Crew Members Sue Disney, Fox Claiming Sexual Harassment And Wrongful Termination
Three former members of the props department on ABC's medical drama Doctor Odyssey filed a lawsuit Friday against the network's parent company Disney and producer 20th Television's parent Fox, alleging they were subject to sexual harassment on the set of the series and eventually retaliated against and terminated when they complained about it. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, says the plaintiffs — Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland and Ava Steinbrenner — were hired in late spring/early summer 2024 to work in the new series' props department. The defendants then hired Tammie Patton as Prop Master and her husband Tyler Patton as Assistant Prop Master who supervised and directed the plaintiffs in their work. More from Deadline 'Doctor Odyssey' Finale Upbeat With No Hint Of A Future On The High Seas ABC Chief Provides 'Doctor Odyssey' Status Update Marvel Skipping Comic-Con's Hall H This Year The suit claims the props department 'was an unlawful den of sexual harassment and retaliation,' and that the plaintiffs were subject to 'an an unchecked campaign of sexual harassment for months' by 'Taylor Patton and his male buddies.' The behavior cited in the lawsuit (read it here) allegedly included 'sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, sexual gestures and images, and unwanted touching including, but not limited to: (i) regularly giving Plaintiffs unwanted, lingering hugs; (ii) touching one of the Plaintiff's thighs; (iii) frequently placing his hands on one of the Plaintiff's lower back; (iv) placing his arms around Plaintiffs' necks and forcing them to 'walk with him;' and (v) openly grabbing a visiting female employee's buttocks on set.' The suit said the plaintiffs eventually went to senior production members to report the misconduct including Tammie Patton, and say they were retaliated against by being forced to do demeaning tasks, and having their jobs threatened. 'Even though Defendants' Human Resources Department and Senior Management assigned to Dr. Odyssey were fully aware of Tyler Patton's inappropriate behavior and the retaliation his wife/Plaintiffs' boss Tammie Patton engaged in, they took no action to prevent it,' says the suit. 'In fact, Defendants' human resources was asleep at the wheel and permitted the frustrated managers/producers on set to handle these conflicts on their own. This led to Plaintiffs suffering additional mistreatment, retaliation, and emotional distress.' In the end, the plaintiffs say that rather than taking action against the alleged harassers, the defendants informed the entire props department in August that it was being terminated. That became effective at the end of September. 'Defendants took the 'easy' way out choosing to eliminate not only the wrongdoers — Prop Master Tammie Patton and Assistant Prop Master Tyler Patton — but all of the remaining employees in the Props Department who had been subject to the wrongdoers' misconduct,' the suit says. As a result, the plaintiffs are claiming wrongful termination in addition to claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. The suit also cites negligent hiring on the part of Disney, Fox and co-defendant Entertainment Partners, saying the defendants knew Tyler Patton had been subject to similar accusations and lawsuit on the set of the mid-2000s Fox medical drama series House. 'Notably, there was some overlap between employees on Dr. Odyssey and employees on the set of House,' the suit says. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Doctor Odyssey, from Ryan Murphy and starring Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson, debuted its first season in September and is on the bubble for a Season 2 pickup. It was not on ABC's fall 2025 schedule when that was announced earlier this month at the broadcast upfronts. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Black America Web
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Black America Web
Smokey Robinson Responds To Rape Accusers With $500M Defamation Suit
Source: Bill Tompkins / Getty Earlier this month, Smokey Robinson was hit with a $50 million sexual assault lawsuit, and now he's firing back. Alongside his wife Frances, the Motown mogul is responding to the allegations with a $500 million counter-suit. According to Variety , in the suit, they not only label the initial filing a 'fabricated scheme' in an effort to extort the wealthy couple, but also accuse them of slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and financial elder abuse. 'The Robinsons did not abuse, harm, or take advantage of Plaintiffs; they treated Plaintiffs with the utmost kindness and generosity,' the suit reads. The couple, who have been married for 23 years, further paint a much more positive environment, saying the former employees went on vacation with them, enjoyed holidays with them, were offered money beyond their salaries, and considered them extended family. The lawyers also filed a motion to dismiss the eight-figure lawsuit, arguing they shouldn't have been allowed to withhold their names. When it was filed the four women only identified themselves as Jane Doe 1, 2, 3 and 4 and claim the Rock & Roll Hall of Famer was a nightmare to work with for years, with their lawyer calling him a 'serial and sick rapist.' Accusations include labeling his wife an enabler as he sexually assaulted the four of them while they were housekeepers at his Chatsworth, California, home, creating a 'hostile work environment.' Jane Doe 1 says the inappropriate behavior began in March 2023, for Jane Doe 2, it started in 2016, who also accuses Frances of 'using ethnically pejorative words and language.' A third claimed he raped her 'at least 20 times' throughout her 12 year tenure, while the third echoes similar sentiments and also served as Frances' assistant. With some of the claims dating back decades, the woman says they feared coming forward earlier in fear of losing their jobs and their families potentially facing 'reprisal, public embarrassment, shame, and humiliation.' When the initial suit went public, the Robinsons released a statement through their lawyer Christopher Frost, shooting down the claims, saying 'the evidence will show that this is simply an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon–$50 million, to be exact.' It further accuses the plaintiffs' attorneys of 'trying to enlist the public as an unwitting participant in the media circus they are trying to create. See social media's response to the claims below. SEE ALSO Smokey Robinson Responds To Rape Accusers With $500M Defamation Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Competing Rulings on Trump Tariffs Cause Chaos
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's tariffs can move forward. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put a hold on a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which issued an injunction Wednesday against Trump's tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, among other trading partners. The legal back-and-forth over the president's tariffs has left both sides scrambling and created uncertainty for policymakers and the business community alike. Yet another ruling on Thursday by District Judge Rudolph Contreras further muddied the waters. Contreras, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled Thursday that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—which the Trump administration cited to justify imposing tariffs—'does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth in the above-listed orders.' This decision stops the administration from collecting tariffs from two Illinois toy importers, Learning Resources and hand2mind, which filed a lawsuit against the administration in April. 'That crushing burden is felt most immediately and acutely by this country's small and mid-size businesses, including Plaintiffs,' the lawsuit said. Contreras gave the administration two weeks to appeal his decision. On what Trump called 'Liberation Day' on April 2, the president imposed 10 percent tariffs on almost every United States trading partner as well as increased levies on countries such as China, on which he imposed a 30 percent tariff. Canada and Mexico were also slapped with 25 percent tariffs. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which included a 2018 Trump appointee, ruled that the IEEPA did not grant the president 'unbounded authority' to impose tariffs—a function that the Constitution relegates to Congress. The panel added that Trump's tariffs 'exceed any authority granted' to the president by the IEEPA, declaring that most of his tariffs were issued illegally. 'The President's assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA,' the judges wrote. 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.' However, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put the ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade on hold, saying the injunction would be 'temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.' The injunction does not apply to Contreras' ruling today. The Trump administration promptly filed a notice of appeal to challenge the court's decision. The Department of Justice has requested to temporarily halt the court order, saying Thursday that it needed 'to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.' 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' White House Spokesman Kush Desai said, noting that the Trump administration is committed to using 'every lever of executive power to address this crisis.' Conspiracy theorist and stalwart Trump supporter Laura Loomer called the decision a 'JUDICIAL COUP' on X—a phrase also used by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said, 'The judicial coup is out of control,' on Wednesday. Despite the court ruling, the president could still find a way to impose his global tariffs, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners,' they wrote in a research note, reported CNBC. 'For now, we expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs,' they added.
E&E News
3 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Judges block Trump tariffs; appeals court intervenes
The legal case against President Donald Trump's tariffs is mounting, with two federal courts ruling that his novel approach of imposing sweeping tariffs on imported goods is illegal. Late Wednesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an order permanently blocking Trump's tariffs. 'There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,' the trade court wrote in an unsigned opinion. Advertisement But the effect of the decision is on hold, after a federal appeals court Thursday temporarily blocked the decision from going into effect.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Lawyers Claim ‘60 Minutes' Harris Interview Caused Him ‘Mental Anguish,' Argue That the ‘First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion' in Motion to Deny Paramount Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit
President Trump's legal team filed an objection to Paramount Global's move to dismiss his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' segment, arguing that the TV newsmagazine's alleged deceptive editing of an interview with Kamala Harris is not protected by the First Amendment. Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS just days before the 2024 presidential election, alleging the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris violated a Texas consumer protection law by misleading voters and caused Trump personal financial harm. His suit initially asked for $10 billion in damages. In February, the president amended the complaint to seek at least $20 billion. More from Variety Trump Reacts Angrily to Question About Wall Street's 'TACO Trade,' Meaning 'Trump Always Chickens Out' on His Tariff Threats: 'It's Called Negotiation' Trump Pardons Reality Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley Following Tax Evasion and Bank Fraud Convictions 'Comics Unleashed' Returns to CBS Late-Night Schedule Following 'Midnight' Cancellation In a March 2025 motion to dismiss Trump's suit, Paramount called the legal action 'an affront to the First Amendment' that is 'without basis in law or fact.' CBS News has maintained that the '60 Minutes' broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was 'not doctored or deceitful.' Meanwhile, lawyers for Paramount and Trump have engaged in settlement talks. Paramount offered $15 million to settle the suit — an amount rejected by Trump, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. Trump's lawyers want more than that, and they want '60 Minutes' to issue an apology to the president, per the Journal article. In addition, Trump's lawyers President's team 'threatened another lawsuit' against CBS amid the settlement talks, according to the WSJ report. On Wednesday (May 28), lawyers for Trump and his co-plaintiff, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), filed their opposition to Paramount's motion to dismiss. A key point of Trump's legal argument is that the edited versions of the '60 Minutes' Harris interview represent commercial speech, and that — as alleged in the president's lawsuit — CBS competes for advertising with Trump's media businesses, including Truth Social's parent company Trump Media & Technology Group (which is majority-owned by the president). With the edited Harris interview, CBS's 'conduct, including news distortion, constituted commercial speech which cannot by any reasonable interpretation be found to have constituted editorial judgment, and that speech damaged Plaintiffs,' Trump's filing said. 'The fact that such commercial speech was issued by a news organization does not insulate Defendants from liability under the First Amendment.' '[T]he First Amendment is no shield to news distortion,' according to the Trump team's filing. According to the filing, the '60 Minutes' editing of the Harris interview 'led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including Plaintiffs, regarding a household name of the legacy media apparently deceptively distorting its broadcasts, and then resisting attempts to clear the public record.' A copy of the Trump team's motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is at this link. The legal battle comes as Paramount is seeking government approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Three left-wing U.S. senators have warned Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, that such a settlement payment by Paramount to the president would be tantamount to an illegal bribe, although legal experts say it's very unlikely the media company could face such a charge. The Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr has maintained the agency's approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president's '60 Minutes' lawsuit. Last November, Carr said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group's 'news distortion' complaint against CBS over the '60 Minutes' Harris interview was 'likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.' Paramount Global has said Trump's lawsuit 'is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process.' In February, Redstone asked Paramount's board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone recused herself from the board's discussions about a settlement with Trump. In response to an FCC request in its examination of the 'new distortion' complaint, CBS News made public an unedited transcript of the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris that aired Oct. 6, 2024 (available at this link) and said the materials showed that 'consistent with 60 Minutes' repeated assurances to the public,' the broadcast 'was not doctored or deceitful.' In a separate case, Trump last year sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos after the anchor inaccurately stated on-air that Trump had been found liable for rape. (A New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.) In December 2024, Disney and ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle Trump's defamation lawsuit plus $1 million in legal fees. Best of Variety 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week Emmy Predictions: Talk/Scripted Variety Series - The Variety Categories Are Still a Mess; Netflix, Dropout, and 'Hot Ones' Stir Up Buzz
