Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
WIPPER (#275264)
Chief Counsel
2 MARTHA L. GOMEZ (#274024)
Senior Staff Counsel
3 OLIVIA N. TRAN (#267057)
Senior Staff Counsel
4 SOYEON C. MESINAS (#324046)
Staff Counsel
5 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING
6 320 W. 4th Street, Suite #1000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
7 Telephone: (213) 439-6799
Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DFEH
9 (Fee Exempt, Gov. Code, § 6103)
10
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
12
26 following against defendants THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, ABC
27 SIGNATURE STUDIOS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CBS STUDIOS, INC., a Delaware
2 individual and resident of California, ERICA MESSER, an individual and resident of California,
3 HARRY BRING, an individual and resident of California, BREEN FRAZIER, an individual and
4 resident of California, GLENN KERSHAW, an individual and resident of California, and STACEY
5 BENEVILLE, an individual and resident of California, and DOES ONE through TEN (collectively,
6 “defendants”), in its own name and on behalf of real parties in interest ANTONY MATULIC, and
7 DAUV MCNEELY (collectively, real parties), and all other similar individuals (collectively,
9 INTRODUCTION
10 1. Over the course of 14 years, Gregory St. Johns, the director of photography for
11 Disney’s and ABC-CBS’s joint production of Criminal Minds, engaged in sexual harassment,
12 discrimination and retaliation against persons working on the set of the show, including without
13 limitation, set production crew members. St. Johns’ conduct was rampant, frequent, and in the open.
14 On a frequent and regular basis, St. Johns touched numerous men on the testicles, anus, butt cheeks,
15 breasts, and kissed or caressed their necks, shoulders, and ears, among other actions. St. Johns
16 doted on certain men and treated them more favorably, provided they acquiesced to his attention.
17 To those who resisted, he retaliated in common patterns, including the silent treatment, social
19 2. With the aid of defendants, St. Johns created an unchecked intimidating, hostile, and
20 offensive work environment on the set of Criminal Minds. Protected by the executive production
21 team––including show runner Erica Messer, executive producer Harry Bring, executive producer
22 John Breen Frazier, director Glenn Kershaw, and unit production manager Stacey Beneville––St.
23 Johns continued his unlawful conduct for years. Defendants’ executive team not only had actual
24 and constructive knowledge of St. Johns’ abusive conduct, they condoned it. No necessary steps to
25 prevent sex-based harassment and discrimination were taken over the years, nor were appropriate
26 corrective actions. Instead, the executives fired anyone who resisted or who tacitly evaded St.
27 Johns’ advances or abuse. The executives fired over a dozen men at St. Johns’ request, including an
28 entire electrical crew and real party in interest Anthony Matulic, after they resisted St. Johns’
-2-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 harassment.
2 3. In late 2017 and early 2018, after crew members made several anonymous
3 complaints about St. Johns, Walt Disney’s Employee Relations conducted various inadequate
4 investigations designed to exonerate St. Johns. During the investigations, a dozen crew members
5 corroborated that St. Johns engaged in frequent and open sexual harassment, discrimination and
6 retaliation. Yet, Employee Relations concluded otherwise, and as such, did not meaningfully
7 discipline or terminate St. Johns. Instead, defendants engaged in further retaliation by firing real
8 party in interest Dauv McNeely for providing negative testimony about St. Johns during the
9 investigation. As a result, St. Johns continued to sexually harass and discriminate against crew
11 4. During the final season, in about October 2018, a reporter from Variety gave the
12 executives a preview into an article about St. Johns’ ongoing hostile work environment and
13 discrimination during the production of Criminal Minds. Threatened by the imminent exposure of
14 St. Johns’ conduct to the public, the executives removed him from the workplace and he did not
15 return to the show. The Variety article was not surprising to the executives, Disney, ABC, CBS– it
16 contained the same allegations of conduct by St. Johns that the crew members reported to Employee
17 Relations months before and that defendants discredited in its sham “investigations.” Defendants
18 chose to act in conscious disregard of its employees’ rights by ignoring the complaints made by the
19 crew members. It was not until the media made St. Johns’ conduct public and potentially threatened
20 their brand that Defendants removed St. Johns from the show. Even when they did so, despite the
21 allegations against him, corporate Defendants paid St. Johns an “enhanced severance.”
22 5. Plaintiff DFEH brings this government enforcement action on behalf of itself and all
23 aggrieved current and/or former employees and other covered persons of Disney— including
24 Antony Matulic and Dauv McNeely (real parties in interest)—to remedy and prevent unlawful
25 employment harassment and discrimination based on sex and retaliation. Specifically, the violations
26 pled herein include claims for unlawful sex harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, failure to
27 prevent discrimination and harassment and retaliation in violation of the California Fair
28 Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq.; committing acts
-3-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 of violence against the real parties and other aggrieved persons on the basis of sex, in violation of
2 the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, Civil Code section 51.7; and violations of Civil Code section
4 PARTIES
6 mediate, and litigate civil rights actions. (Gov. Code, § 12930 et seq.) Among its authorities, DFEH
7 is charged with enforcing the FEHA set forth in Government Code section 12900 et seq., by issuing
9 (Gov. Code, §§12961, 12965.) The FEHA declares as the public policy of the State of California
10 the protection of all Californians’ civil rights to seek, obtain, and hold employment without
11 abridgment on account of sex. (Gov. Code, §§ 12920, 12926, subds. (l), (o) & (r); 12940 subds. (a),
12 (h), (j) & (k); 12965.) Government Code, Section 12948 makes it an illegal practice under FEHA
13 for any person to deny or to aid, incite or conspire in the denial of rights created by Section 51.7 or
15 7. Defendant The Walt Disney Company is now and was, at all times relevant to this
16 complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the State of California and
17 conducting business in Los Angeles, California. The Walt Disney Company’s corporate
18 headquarters is located at 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521 and the company was
19 operating a business location at 4585 Electronics Place, Los Angeles, CA 900395 (Quixote Studios)
20 where real parties in interest and aggrieved persons worked. The Walt Disney Company is and was,
21 at all times relevant to this complaint, an “employer” within the meaning of Government Code
22 sections 12926, subdivision (d), 12940, 12951, and all other applicable statutes, and a “person”
24 8. Defendant ABC Signature Studios, Inc., is now and was, at all times relevant to this
25 complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the State of California and
26 conducting business in Los Angeles, California. ABC Signatures Studios, Inc., has a business
27 location at 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521 and was operating a business location at
28 4585 Electronics Place Los Angeles, CA 900395 (Quixote Studios) where real parties in interest
-4-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 and aggrieved persons worked. ABC Signatures Studios, Inc., is and was, at all times relevant to
2 this complaint, an “employer” within the meaning of Government Code sections 12926, subdivision
3 (d), 12940, 12951, and all other applicable statutes, and a “person” subject to Civil Code section
4 51.9.
5 9. Defendant CBS Studios, Inc., is now and was, at all times relevant to this complaint,
6 a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the State of California and conducting
7 business in Los Angeles, California. CBS Studios, Inc., has a business location at 4024 Radford
8 Ave, Studio City, CA 91604 and was operating a business location at 4585 Electronics Place Los
9 Angeles, CA 900395 (Quixote Studios) where real parties in interest and aggrieved persons worked.
10 CBS Studios, Inc., is and was, at all times relevant to this complaint, an “employer” within the
11 meaning of Government Code sections 12926, subdivision (d), 12940, 12951, and all other
13 10. Defendant Entertainment Partners Services, LLC, is now and was, at all times
14 relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the State of
15 California and conducting business in Los Angeles, California. The Entertainment Partners
16 Services, LLC, corporate headquarters is located at 2950 N Hollywood Way, CA 91505 and the
17 company employed the real parties in interest and other aggrieved parties to perform work at 4585
18 Electronics Place, Los Angeles, CA 900395 (Quixote Studios). Entertainment Partners Services,
19 LLC, is now and was, at all times relevant to this complaint, an “employer” within the meaning of
20 Government Code sections 12926, subdivision (d), 12940, 12951, and all other applicable statutes,
22 11. ABC Signature Studios, Inc., and CBS Studios, Inc., jointly produced Criminal
23 Minds. The Walt Disney Company is the parent company for ABC Signature Studios, Inc., and as
24 such complaints of employment discrimination regarding the Criminal Minds production were
25 handled by The Walt Disney Company’s Employee Relations Department. At all relevant times and
26 during the production of Criminal Minds, The Walt Disney Company, ABC Signature Studios, Inc.,
27 and CBS Studios, Inc., had an interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control
2 was the Director of Photography for the production of Criminal Minds from about July 10, 2006 to
3 October 3, 2018 and at all relevant times to this complaint. St. Johns had the power to direct
4 production crew members on the set where the real parties in interest and aggrieved persons
5 worked. St. Johns was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a “supervisor” within the meaning of
6 Government Code sections 12926, subdivision (t), and all other applicable statutes, and a “person”
8 13. Defendant Erica Messer (Messer) is a resident of the State of California. Messer was
9 a producer, executive producer, and showrunner for the production of Criminal Minds from about
10 July 21, 2005 to May 2019 and at all relevant times to this complaint. As showrunner, Messer had
11 overall creative authority and management responsibility for the production. Messer had the power
12 to fire and hire production department heads and crew members and to set policy, among other
13 powers. Messer was a managing agent of the corporate defendants and a “person” subject to Civil
15 14. Defendant Harry Bring (Bring) is a resident of the State of California. Bring was a
16 producer and executive producer for the production of Criminal Minds from about July 6, 2011 to
17 May 2019 and at all relevant times to this complaint. Bring had the power to fire and hire
18 production department heads and crew members and to set policy, among other powers. Bring was
19 a managing agent of the corporate defendants and a “person” subject to Civil Code section sections
21 15. Defendant John Breen Frazier (Frazier) is a resident of the State of California.
22 Frazier was an executive producer for the production of Criminal Minds from about June 6, 2008 to
23 May 2019 and at all relevant times to this complaint. Frazier had the power to fire and hire
24 production department heads and crew members and to set policy, among other powers. Frazier was
25 a managing agent of the corporate defendants and a “person” subject to Civil Code sections 51.7
26 and 51.9.
28 Kershaw was the director of photography from about July 21, 2005 to April 4, 2006 and directing
-6-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 producer (director) for the production of Criminal Minds from about July 10, 2006 to May 2019
2 and at all relevant times to this complaint. Kershaw had the power to fire and hire production
3 department heads and crew members and to set policy, among other powers. Kershaw was a
4 managing agent of the corporate defendants and a “person” subject to Civil Code sections 51.7 and
5 51.9.
6 17. Defendant Stacey Beneville (Beneville) is a resident of the State of California and
7 was a first assistant director and unit production manager for the production of Criminal Minds
8 from about June 6, 2008 to March 2019 and at all relevant times to this complaint. Beneville had
9 the power to fire and hire production department heads and crew members and to set policy, among
10 other powers, and was a managing agent of the corporate defendants. Beneville was, at all times
11 relevant to this complaint, a “supervisor” within the meaning of Government Code sections 12926,
12 subdivision (t), and all other applicable statutes, and a “person” subject to Civil Code sections 51.7
13 and 51.9.
14 18. At all relevant times, real party in interest, Antony Matulic (Matulic) was an
15 employee of Disney performing work in Los Angeles County. Disney hired Matulic for the position
16 of Digital Image Technician (DIT) in about July 2009. Disney fired Matulic on or about the week of
17 March 26, 2017. At all times herein, Matulic was a “person” within the meaning of Government
18 Code section 12925, 12940, and any other applicable statutes. He was also an “employee” within
19 the meaning of Government Code sections 12926, 12940, and any other applicable statutes.
20 19. At all relevant times, real party in interest, Dauv McNeely (McNeely) was an
21 employee of Disney performing work in Los Angeles County. Disney hired McNeely in the Video
22 Playback Department in about 2004. Defendants fired McNeely in about March 23, 2018. At all
23 times herein, McNeely was a “person” within the meaning of Government Code section 12925,
24 12940, and any other applicable statutes. He was also an “employee” within the meaning of
25 Government Code sections 12926, 12940, and any other applicable statutes.
26 20. Defendants DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive, are sued herein pursuant to Code of
27 Civil Procedure section 474. The DFEH is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the
28 defendants sued herein under the fictitious names DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive. The DFEH
-7-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained.
2 The DFEH is informed, believes, and alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is
3 legally responsible for the occurrences, injuries and damages alleged herein.
4 21. The DFEH is informed, believes, and alleges that at all relevant times, each
5 defendant is and was, the director, agent, employee, and/or representative of every other defendant
6 and acted within the course and scope of their agency, service, employment, and/or representation,
7 and that each defendant herein is jointly and severally responsible and liable to real parties for the
8 damages hereinafter alleged. At all relevant times, there existed a unity of ownership and interest
9 between or among two or more of the defendants such that any individuality and separateness
10 between or among those defendants has ceased, and defendants are the alter egos of one another.
11 Defendants exercised domination and control over one another to such an extent that any
12 individuality or separateness of defendants does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not,
13 exist. All actions of all defendants were taken by employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and
14 directors during employment with all defendants, were taken on behalf of all defendants, and were
17 22. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
18 23. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles under Government Code section
19 12965, subdivision (a) because the unlawful practices complained of in this complaint occurred in
21 24. Matulic filed a timely administrative complaint with the DFEH, against ABC
22 Signature Studios Inc., Entertainment Partners Services, LLC, and Gregory St. Johns, on behalf of
23 himself and others like him, on or about March 9, 2018. Matulic amended his complaint on January
24 31, 2019 to include The Walt Disney Company and CBS Studios, Inc., as his employers, in
26 25. McNeely filed a timely administrative complaint with the DFEH, against all
27 defendants, on behalf of himself and others like him, on or about February 19, 2019.
28 26. On March 8, 2019, the Director of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing,
-8-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 Kevin Kish, filed a Director’s Complaint and issued a Notice of Filing Director’s Complaint against
2 all defendants, alleging unlawful discrimination, harassment, unlawful aiding and abetting,
3 retaliation, and failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and
4 retaliation under the FEHA, and verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile
5 nature based on gender in violation of Civil Code section 51.9. It further alleged that Defendant
6 Gregory St. Johns violated the Ralph Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51.7. Director Kish also
7 issued a Notice of Group or Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class
8 Relief to all defendants, which timely notified defendants that DFEH would treat Matulic’s and
10 civil action pursuant to Government Code section 12965. DFEH properly and timely served
11 defendants with the Director’s Complaint, Notice of Filing Director’s Complaint, and Notice of
13 27. The parties attempted to resolve this matter without litigation, and participated in
14 mandatory dispute resolution session as required by Government Code section 12965 on or about
15 on May 8, 2020, but were unable to resolve their differences. All defendants were represented by
16 counsel.
17 28. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
18 29. By operation of a signed agreement between the parties, DFEH’s deadline to file a
20 30. The amount of damages sought by this complaint exceeds the minimum
21 jurisdictional limits of this Court.
22 GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION ALLEGATIONS
23 31. DFEH brings this government enforcement action for group relief pursuant to its
24 authority under Government Code sections 12960, 12961 and 12965. DFEH brings this action on
25 behalf of itself and all persons who worked on set for the production of Criminal Minds, including
26 Antony Matulic and Dauv McNeely (real parties in interest).
27
32. As the case is not a class action, class certification under Code of Civil Procedure
28
-9-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 sections 378 and 382 is not required. (Dep’t Fair Emp’t & Hous. v. Law School Admission Council,
2 Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F.Supp.2d 11 59, 1168-1170; General Telephone Co. of the Nw., Inc. v.
3 EEOC (1980) 446 U.S. 318, 323 [“Rule 23 is not applicable to an enforcement action brought by
4 the EEOC in its own name and pursuant to its authority ... to prevent unlawful employment
5 practices.”]; EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. (2002) 534 U.S. 279,291 [“The statute clearly makes the
6 EEOC the master of its own case and confers on the agency the authority to evaluate the strength of
7 the public interest at stake.”]; Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC (1977) 432 U.S. 355, 368
8 [“[T]he EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private
9 parties ....”]; NLRB v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 403 (9th Cir. 1983) 710 F.2d 1418,
10 1420 [“[T]he General Telephone rationale is equally applicable to enforcement actions brought by
11 the Board under the NLRA” because the action is “not a civil proceeding brought by a group of
13 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14 33. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
15 34. Although Disney and its co-defendants market themselves as leading family-friendly
16 brands in the entertainment industry, the standard operating procedure on the set of Criminal Minds
18 widespread and commonplace. And, despite common knowledge of such a pattern or practice of
20 35. On a consistent, continuous, and regular basis, St. Johns subjected Matulic,
21 McNeely, and other aggrieved employees, former employees or covered persons to hostile work
22 environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace. St. Johns touched men on the
23 testicles, anus, butt cheeks, breasts, and kissed or caressed their necks, shoulders, and ears, among
24 other actions, in view of other employees, executive producers and/or management. The
26 36. In plain view of everyone on set, St. Johns also doted on certain men and treated
27 them more favorably, provided they acquiesced to his attention. To those who resisted or
28 complained, St. Johns responded with retaliation, including but not limited to, the silent treatment,
-10-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 social ostracism, unfair criticism, public shaming, and termination, thus causing substantial adverse
2 changes in the terms and conditions of their employment. Defendants did nothing to stop it.
3 37. For example, when employees braved the cultural climate which permitted St. Johns
4 harassment and discrimination – including risk of being “blacklisted” in the industry, their
5 complaints were unaddressed or inadequately addressed. Defendants protected and allowed St.
6 Johns – a repeat offender – to continue his behavior with no meaningful consequences. This
7 deterred employees from lodging complaints because accountability was inconsistently and unfairly
8 administered by defendants.
9 38. The executive production team, including but not limited to, show runner or leading
10 executive producer Erica Messer, executive producer Harry Bring, director Glenn Kershaw,
11 executive producer Breen Frazier, and unit production manager Stacey Beneville, knew or should
12 have known about St. Johns’ unlawful actions. Some of these executives witnessed St. Johns
13 sexually harass employees, but did not take action. Employees complained in person directly to at
14 least one executive about St. Johns’ sexual harassment, but they failed to investigate or stop the
16 39. Multiple employees complained to defendants that St. Johns engaged in sexual
17 harassment, discrimination and retaliation (including retaliatory terminations) against them. These
18 complaints were made via an anonymous tip hotline or anonymous letters, among other methods.
19 Employee Relations, including but not limited to senior employee relations manager Nicole Hauge,
20 who was supervised by vice president of employee relations Albert Hernandez, conducted an
21 inadequate and biased investigation designed to exonerate St. Johns and hide the misconduct.
22 Various witnesses came forward and provided information to corroborate the allegations against St.
23 Johns. Employee Relations failed to give St. Johns meaningful discipline, kept St. Johns as the
24 director of photography, and allowed him to continue harassing, discriminating, and retaliating
25 against the real parties and other aggrieved persons. Defendants protected St. Johns in callous and
28 McNeely, who corroborated the allegations against St. Johns. Defendants responded by firing
-11-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 McNeely three months later, at the end of Season 13, in or around March 23, 2018. McNeely had
3 41. Another retaliatory and/or harassing action occurred when Matulic resisted a butt
4 slap from St. Johns, and St. Johns immediately subjected him to the silent treatment, ostracized him,
5 and then fired him at the end of the season, among other actions. The executive team approved of
6 St. Johns’ recommendation to terminate Matulic. Defendants’ reasons for terminating Matulic were
7 pretextual.
8 42. The executive team routinely approved the retaliatory firings that St. Johns
9 recommended. The executive team protected St. Johns over the crew members, even though they
10 knew or should have known that St. Johns engaged in sexual harassment and discrimination based
11 on sex, and retaliation against the employees on the production set; defendants had a policy of
12 tolerance to St. Johns’ unlawful course of action. Defendants consciously and intentionally made
13 adverse employment actions against the crew members to protect St. Johns.
14 43. During the final season, in about October 2018, a reporter from Variety gave the
15 executive producers a preview into an article about St. Johns’ ongoing hostile work environment,
16 discrimination and retaliation during the production of Criminal Minds, containing the same
17 allegations that the crewmembers had made to defendants’ Employee Relations department. The
18 executive producers, threatened by the imminent exposure of St. John’s conduct to the public,
19 removed St. Johns from the workplace that day and he did not return to the show. Defendants chose
20 to act in conscious disregard of its employees’ rights by ignoring the complaints made by the
21 crewmembers. It was not until the media made St. Johns’ conduct public and threatened their image
22 that defendants removed St. Johns from the show. Defendants paid St. Johns an “enhanced
23 severance.”
24 44. Defendants have and continue to maintain a practice of creating, fostering and
25 tolerating sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation in their workplace. Defendants also
26 have and continue to maintain a practice of ignoring and/or failing to act promptly to investigate
2 and about how to prevent harassment from occurring; failing to implement an adequate complaint
3 mechanism for receiving and addressing complaints of unlawful conduct; and refusing to discipline
5 45. Defendants subjected covered persons, including without limitation, set production
6 crew members to discrimination and harassment based on sex and retaliated against those who
8 46. These unlawful practices deprived Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved
9 employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected the terms and
10 conditions of their employment because of their sex and because they engaged in protected
11 activities.
12 47. Defendants’ flawed policies and practices effectively allowed, and continue to allow,
13 discrimination to occur in defendants’ workplace. Employees have suffered and will continue to
14 suffer harm from Defendants’ ongoing unlawful policies and practices unless they are enjoined by
15 this court.
20 48. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
21 49. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a), declares that it is an unlawful
22 employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person “in terms, conditions, or
23 privileges of employment,” or to “discharge the person” because of, inter alia, that person’s sex.
24 50. Defendants discriminated against all real parties and aggrieved employees in the
25 terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of their sex, male.
26 51. As a result of defendants’ unlawful employment practices, Matulic, McNeely, and
27 the other aggrieved employees suffered and continue to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future
28 employment opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages, including but
-13-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 not limited to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and mental
3 52. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and were
4 committed with the wrongful intent to injure Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved employees
5 and in conscious disregard of their rights. Defendants were aware of St. Johns’ discrimination and
6 harassment but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop his unlawful
7 conduct.
8 53. Corporate defendants, through their managing agents, including the executive
9 producers of Criminal Minds and Disney’s Employee Relations, were aware of St. Johns’
10 misconduct but nonetheless authorized and ratified his discrimination and harassment based on sex
11 when they ignored multiple complaints about his harassing conduct, conducted an inadequate and
12 biased investigation designed to exonerate St. Johns and hide the misconduct, failed to give St.
13 Johns any meaningful discipline, and, instead, kept St. Johns as the director of photography and
14 allowed him to continue harassing the real parties and other aggrieved employees, and retaliated
16 54. Defendants engaged in, and by their refusal to comply with the law, demonstrated
17 they will continue to engage in, unlawful employment discrimination based on sex unless they are
18 enjoined pursuant to the police power granted by Government Code sections 12920 and 12920.5,
19 from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates of the FEHA, Government Code section
20 12900 et seq.
21 55. Unless defendants are enjoined from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates
22 of the FEHA, the real parties’ and other persons’ right to seek or hold employment free of unlawful
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-14-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
1 Harassment Based on Sex
2 (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j))
(Against The Walt Disney Company, ABC Signature Studios, Inc., CBS Studios, Inc.,
3 Entertainment Partners Services, LLC, and St. Johns)
(On Behalf of DFEH, All Real Parties and All Aggrieved Persons)
4
57. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
5
58. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j), declares that it is an unlawful
6
employment practice for an employer “or any other person” “to harass an employee, an applicant,
7
an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract,” because of,
8
inter alia, that person’s sex.
9
59. Defendant St. Johns routinely subjected the real parties to unwelcomed touching and
10
other misconduct, so severe or pervasive that it created a hostile work environment.
11
60. Corporate defendants knew or should have known of the conduct, and failed to take
12
immediate and appropriate action.
13
61. Defendants’ acts constitute unlawful harassment of Matulic, McNeely, and other
14
aggrieved employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers or persons providing services
15
pursuant to a contract due to their sex in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision
16
(j).
17
62. As a result of defendants’ unlawful employment practices, Matulic, McNeely, and
18
the other aggrieved individuals suffered and continue to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits, lost
19
future employment opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages,
20
including but not limited to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and
21
mental anguish, in an amount to be determined at trial.
22
63. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and were
23
committed with the wrongful intent to injure Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved persons
24
and in conscious disregard of their rights.
25
64. Corporate defendants ratified and adopted St. Johns sexual harassment when they
26
ignored several complaints, conducted an inadequate and biased investigation designed to exonerate
27
St. Johns and hide the misconduct, failed to give St. Johns meaningful discipline, kept St. Johns as
28
-15-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 the director of photography and allowed him to continue harassing the real parties and other
3 65. Defendants engaged in, and by their refusal to comply with the law, demonstrated
4 they will continue to engage in, unlawful employment harassment based on sex unless they are
5 enjoined pursuant to the police power granted by Government Code sections 12920 and 12920.5,
6 from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates of the FEHA, Government Code section
7 12900 et seq.
8 66. Unless defendants are enjoined from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates
9 of the FEHA, the real parties’ and other persons’ right to seek or hold employment free of unlawful
16 68. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
17 69. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h), declares that it is an unlawful
18 employment practice for any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to
19 discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any
20 practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted
21 in any proceeding under this part.
22 70. Defendant St. Johns routinely subjected the real parties, including Matulic and
23 McNeely, and other aggrieved persons to retaliation for resisting him or complaining about his
24 unwelcome touching and other misconduct, including but not limited to using the silent treatment,
25 socially ostracizing them, overly and unfairly scrutinizing their work, firing them or causing them
26 to be fired at the end of the seasons, among other actions.
27 71. After Matulic resisted St. Johns’ slap on the butt, defendants retaliated, including but
28 not limited to, by giving Matulic the silent treatment, socially ostracizing him, firing him, and
-16-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 refusing to hire him on other shows.
2 72. After McNeely provided information to Employee Relations about St. Johns’
3 frequent and open sexual harassment and retaliation, defendants retaliated against McNeely,
4 including but not limited to, firing him and refusing to hire him on any other shows.
5 73. Defendants’ acts constitute unlawful retaliation against Matulic, McNeely, and the
6 other aggrieved persons in interest in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h).
8 the other aggrieved persons suffered and continue to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future
9 employment opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages, including but
10 not limited to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and mental
12 75. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and were
13 committed with the wrongful intent to injure Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved persons
15 76. Corporate defendants ratified and adopted St. Johns retaliatory conduct when they
16 ignored several complaints, conducted an inadequate and biased investigation designed to exonerate
17 St. Johns and hide the misconduct, failed to give St. Johns meaningful discipline, kept St. Johns as
18 the director of photography and allowed him to continue retaliating against the real parties and
20 77. Defendants engaged in, and by their refusal to comply with the law, demonstrated
21 they will continue to engage in, unlawful employment retaliation unless they are enjoined pursuant
22 to the police power granted by Government Code sections 12920 and 12920.5, from failing or
23 refusing to comply with the mandates of the FEHA, Government Code section 12900 et seq.
24 78. Unless defendants are enjoined from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates
25 of the FEHA, the real parties’ and other persons’ right to seek or hold employment free of unlawful
28 ///
-17-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
2 (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k))
3 (Against The Walt Disney Company, ABC Signature Studios, Inc., CBS Studios, Inc., and
Entertainment Partners Services, LLC)
4 (On behalf of All Real Parties in Interest and All Aggrieved Persons )
5 80. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
6 81. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), requires employers to take all
7 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and sexual harassment from occurring.
8 82. Corporate defendants violated Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), by
9 failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment of
10 employees. Corporate Defendants’ failure to have and/or enforce adequate and consistent anti-
11 discrimination policies were substantial motivating factors in causing harm to Real Parties and all
12 aggrieved persons. Corporate Defendants failed to have an effective sexual harassment policy,
13 failed to adequately train all supervisors, managers and executives on the prevention of
14 discrimination and harassment based on sex, and/or failed to timely discipline or stop
15 discriminatory or harassing behavior from occurring in the workplace, including without limitation
16 failing to prevent St. Johns from harassing Matulic, McNeely, and all other aggrieved persons.
17 83. By engaging in the conduct set forth above, corporate defendants acted in conscious
18 disregard of the rights or safety of others and acted in an oppressive, fraudulent or malicious
19 manner in violation of California Civil Code section 3294.
20 84. As a further result of the unlawful employment practices of corporate defendants,
21 Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved persons suffered lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future
22 employment opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages, including but
23 not limited to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and mental
24 anguish, in an amount to be determined at trial.
25 85. Corporate Defendants have engaged in, and by their refusal to comply with the law
26 demonstrated they will continue to engage in, unlawful employment harassment, discrimination,
27 and retaliation unless they are enjoined from doing so pursuant to Government Code sections 12974
28 and 12965, subdivision (c).
-18-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 86. By reason of the continuous nature of corporate Defendants’ discriminatory conduct,
8 88. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
9 89. Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), requires employers to take all
10 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and sexual harassment from occurring.
11 90. Corporate defendants violated Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), by
12 failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment of
13 employees. Corporate defendants’ failure to have and/or enforce adequate and consistent anti-
14 discrimination policies were substantial motivating factors in causing harm to Real Parties and all
15 aggrieved persons. Corporate defendants failed to have an effective sexual harassment policy, failed
16 to adequately train all supervisors, managers and executives on the prevention of discrimination and
17 harassment based on sex, and/or failed to timely discipline or stop discriminatory or harassing
18 behavior from occurring in the workplace, including without limitation failing to prevent St. Johns
19 from harassing Matulic, McNeely, and all other aggrieved persons.
20 91. Corporate defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive
21 and were committed with the wrongful intent to injure employees or persons in conscious disregard
22 of their rights.
23 92. Corporate defendants have engaged in, and by their refusal to comply with the law
24 demonstrated they will continue to engage in, the unlawful employment discrimination unless they
25 are enjoined from doing so pursuant to Government Code sections 12974 and 12965, subdivision
26 (c).
27
93. Plaintiff DFEH requests relief as herein described.
28
-19-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1
5 94. DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
6 95. Civil Code section 51.9 imposes personal liability on those with a business or
7 professional relationship, including but not limited to a “[d]irector and producer”, for the sexual
8 harassment of persons who are subjected to sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands
9 for sexual compliance, or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile
10 nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or severe. (Civ. Code, § 51.9, subd.
11 (a).)
12 96. Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved persons had a business and professional
13 relationship with defendants within the meaning of Civil Code, section 51.9.
14 97. On a consistent, continuous, and regular basis, St. Johns touched men on the testicles,
15 anus, butt cheeks, breasts, and kissed or caressed their necks, shoulders, and ears, among other
16 actions, in view of executive producers and/or management. These acts were of a hostile nature
17 based on gender. St. Johns’ touching was unwelcome and pervasive or severe.
18 98. As a result of defendants’ conduct, Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved
19 persons suffered and continue to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future employment
20 opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages, including but not limited
21 to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and mental anguish, in an
23 99. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants knew or should have known
24 that the actions were likely to injure Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved parties. Plaintiff is
25 informed and believes that St. Johns intended to cause injury to Matulic, McNeely, and the other
26 aggrieved parties and acted with willful and conscious disregard of their rights as secured by Civil
27 Code section 51.9 and Government Code section 12948. Thus, plaintiff is therefore entitled to
28
-20-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
1 recover exemplary damages on behalf of Matulic, McNeely, and the other aggrieved parties pursuant
3 100. Disney and executive defendants Erica Messer, Harry Bring, Glenn Kershaw, Breen
4 Fraizer, and Stacey Beneville had actual and constructive knowledge of St. Johns’ abusive conduct,
5 but failed to correct it. Instead, they fired anyone who resisted or who tacitly evaded St. Johns’
6 oppression. Disney and executive defendants fired over a dozen men at St. Johns’ request, including
7 but not limited to an entire electrical crew and Matulic after they resisted. Disney and executive
8 defendants fired McNeely after he complained to the Employee Relations department about St.
9 Johns’ harassment. Disney and executive defendants protected and encouraged St. Johns, and
10 allowed him to continue the despicable conduct in which he has engaged, in violation of Civil Code
12 101. Disney and executive defendants Erica Messer, Harry Bring, Glenn Kershaw, Breen
13 Fraizer, and Stacey Beneville gave St. Johns substantial assistance and encouragement, and aided,
14 incited, and conspired with St. Johns to allow his despicable conduct when they ignored complaints,
15 conducted an inadequate and biased investigation designed to exonerate St. Johns and hide the
16 misconduct, failed to give St. Johns meaningful discipline, retained St. Johns as the Director of
17 Photography and allowed him to continue harassing the real parties and all the aggrieved persons, in
18 violation of Civil Code section 52, subdivision (b) and Government Code section 12948.
2 occasions.
3 106. Disney and executive defendants Erica Messer, Harry Bring, Glenn Kershaw, Breen
4 Fraizer, and Stacey Beneville had actual and constructive knowledge of St. Johns’ abusive conduct,
5 but failed to correct it. Instead, they fired anyone who resisted or who tacitly evaded St. Johns’
6 oppression. Disney and executives fired over a dozen men at St. Johns’ request, including but not
7 limited to an entire electrical crew and Matulic after they resisted. Disney and executive defendants
8 fired McNeely after he complained to the Employee Relations department about St. Johns’
9 harassment. Disney and executive defendants protected and encouraged St. Johns, and allowed him
10 to continue the despicable conduct in which he has engaged, in violation of Civil Code section 52,
12 107. A substantial motivating reason for defendant St. Johns’ conduct was Matulic’s,
14 108. As a result of defendant St. Johns’ violence and inappropriate touching, Matulic,
15 McNeely, and the other aggrieved parties suffered and continue to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits,
16 lost future employment opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic damages,
17 including but not limited to, emotional pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, sadness, and
19 109. The assaults by defendant St. Johns were a substantial factor in causing Matulic’s,
2 opportunities, pay adjustments, backpay, lost wages and benefits (including base pay, incentive pay,
5 6. Attorneys’ fees and costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing; and
10
11 __________________________________
By: MARTHA L. GOMEZ
12 Attorneys for the Department
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-23-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. (Kish)
Civil Rights Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages