September 19, 2025 • 15 mins
A critical legal foundation of this action is the New York Adult Survivors Act (CPLR 214-j).1 This legislation serves as the sole mechanism by which a claim for an alleged incident from 2010 can be filed in 2023, as the standard statute of limitations for such a claim would have long since expired. The complaint explicitly invokes this act, which opened a temporary “look-back” window for sexual abuse claims. The plaintiff’s legal team is leveraging this new law to bypass a significant procedural hurdle, making this lawsuit possible.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Society impact, this today the place we're doing a deep
dive into a really specific source, right.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
A verified complaint in summons.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Filed in New York Supreme Court November twenty twenty three.
And this isn't just you know, rehashing a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
No, not at all. We're focusing on the actual allegations
in the document and importantly the legal mechanics behind.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
It, exactly how it targets not just a celebrity, Russell Brand,
but also several major.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Corporations, which is a key part of the strategy here.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
So the plaintiff is Jane do resident of New York,
defendants Russell Brand obviously, and then these five corporate entities.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yeah, let's listen because it matters. Warner Bros. Pictures, Ink,
Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. MBST Entertainment Inc. Vendors Bink Inc.
And Langley Park Pictures that's a.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Mix of production management, the big studio. It covers the
bases absolutely.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
But before we even get to what allegedly happened, we
need to talk about why this lawsuit can even happen
now because the events were what over a decade ago?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Right, That's the crucial piece, isn't it the legal gateway?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It really is. It's brought under the New York Adult
Survivors Act CPLR two fourteen.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
J Okay, So what does that mean for you for
someone listening?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Well, basically, claims like this usually have a time limit,
a statute of limitations. That limit would have expired ages
ago for something in twenty ten, makes sense, But the
ASA created this temporary look back window allowed people to
file claims for sexual abuse that were previously blocked by
those time limits.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So it reopened the door legally speaking.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Exactly, it turned something that was well legally impossible into
a live case, and that changes everything for these companies
looking back at past events.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Huge implication for potential liability from way back.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
When precisely it lets the plaintiff connect the alleged twenty
ten incident to this filing in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Okay, So using that act is the bridge. Let's talk
about the setting described in the complaint where and when?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Right? The complaint is very specific. It's the set of
the movie Arthur the Remake. Okay, I remember that film
filming in New York County. The date given is on
or about July seventh, twenty ten, and the location specifically
during filming at La Cirque restaurant, you know the famous.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Spot, right, and the plaintiff Jane Doe. She was working
on the film.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Yes, employed as an actor. The complaint clarifies she was
an extra on set that day.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And the complaint it seems to set a scene pretty quickly,
doesn't it about Brand's condition?
Speaker 3 (02:42):
It does. It alleges that on that specific day, July seventh,
Brand was visibly intoxicated, visibly intoxicated on set, yes, and
carrying an open bottle of alcohol right there at La
Cirque while filming was happening or about to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Wow. And why is that that detail included so prominently.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Because the plaintiff uses it as like the first example
of negligence by the companies.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
The argument is, here's the star visibly drunk with alcohol
on their set, and nobody stepped in. No one from
the corporate defendants or their teams did anything to well
manage the situation or protect the environment.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
So that's the first alleged failure to supervise a moment.
They saw it or should have seen it, and did nothing.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
That's the core of the argument for that specific detail.
It sets up this idea that the environment was permissive,
maybe even uncontrolled, which.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Then leads into the first specific alleged incident. Let's walk
through that timeline as laid out in the complaint. It
starts publicly.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Yes, the first allegend encounter is described as happening openly.
Plaintiff was sitting at a table waiting, brand allegedly makes
eye contact. Then the complaint alleges he pulled his erect
penis out of his pants in an open and obvious manner,
facing her.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Directly, openly in front of others.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
That's the allegation in the presence of everyone on set,
which would include employees of these corporate defendants.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
And the complaint stresses the reaction, or the lack of
one exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
That's critical for the corporate liability part. It alleges no
one disciplined him, No one reprimanded him. No one sept
in to protect the plaintiff or frankly, anyone else.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So the inaction itself is a key allegation.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Yes, the complaint says the behavior was treated as acceptable,
and if that was acceptable, the argument goes, it essentially
greenlit further worse behavior. It fostered an environment where misconduct could.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Escalate, which, according to the complaint, it did. Later that day,
there's a second alleged incident.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
That's right, the setting changes. It's during a break. Plaintiff
goes into a multi stall restroom, Okay, when she comes
out of her stall, the complaint alleges Brand was inside
the restroom, waiting.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Inside the women's restroom or just a general restroom.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
The complaint specifies a multi stall restroom, implying a public
or shared one on set, and it alleges he was
physically blocking the exit with.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
His body blocking the exit.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
And again again, pants pulled down, erect penis exposed, according to.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
The filing, and this is where the alleged assault happens.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Yes, in that confined space, the complaint states she was
very scared. He allegedly pressed himself against her back, forced
her into a stall, repeatedly asked her to kiss his
penis and then allegedly forced her head down, initiating oral sex.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And how did it end.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
She managed to push him away and escaped the stall,
escape the restroom. That's how the complaint describes it.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
So those alleged actions form the basis for the direct
claims against Brand himself right sexual assault, battery.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Correct sexual assault, sexual battery, false imprisonment because she was
allegedly blocked in, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those
are the specific torques the civil wrongs alleged against him personally.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
But there's a detail about her escape that seems aimed
squarely at the corporate.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
There is, and it's a really stark allegation. What is it?
The complaint alleges that when she finally got out of
the bathroom, there was production crew member standing directly outside.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
The door, just standing there.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Not just standing there. The allegation is specific positioned as
if they were guarding the door to ensure that Brand
would not be.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Interrupted guarding the door. That's a huge leap from just
failing to supervise.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
It's an enormous leap. It shifts the claim from negligence
failing to act to perpetial complicity or active facilitation taking
an action having an employee posted there that allegedly enabled
the assault.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
If true, that directly involves an employee of one or
more of the corporate defendants.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Precisely, it alleges active participation by the production apparatus itself
and the immediate aftermath for the plaintiff.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
What does the complaint say happen to her job on
the film?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
It says she wasn't asked back for the next two
days of filming she was scheduled for. She was only
paid for that one day, July seventh.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, so let's pivot now to how the lawsuit tries
to legally tie all this back to those five companies,
Warner Bros. Mbst the others. This is the core legal strategy, right,
proving corporate culpability.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Absolutely. This is where the heavy lifting in the legal
argument happens. It revolves around a concept called negligent hiring,
retention and supervision.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Okay, break that down for US. Negligent hiring retention, supervision, Sure, it.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Basically means the plaintiff is arguing the companies failed in
their duty to keep the workplace safe in three ways.
One hiring. They hired Brand when they allegedly knew or
should have known, he had tendencies towards this kind of behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
To retention.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Retention, they kept him employed, kept him as the star,
even after they had reason to know he was a risk,
maybe based on prior incidents or warnings. And three supervision
supervision while he was actually on their set, using their facilities,
working for them, they failed to adequately watch him, control him,
or intervene when he acted inappropriately, like the alleged intoxication
(07:59):
or the exposure incident.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Okay, but the companies might argue, how could we know
about his private behavior or past issues. How does the
complaint address that new and or should have known standard.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
That's a critical point. The complaint argues, this wasn't some
hidden secret. It points directly to Brand's publicly reported history.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Ah so they cite media report.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, explicitly, it mentioned specific things allegations made publicly by
four other women spanning from twenty six to twenty thirteen.
It references alleged incidents of him flashing people on the
sets of the BBC and Channel four.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
So public knowledge stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Right, and maybe most damagingly, it mentions allegations that some
of Brand's own colleagues felt like their job involved helping
him meet young women, making them feel like and this
is the word used pimps.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Citing those public reports seems tactically important. It suggests the
companies didn't need some secret internal memo to be aware exactly.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
It argues that basic due diligence, just paying attention to
widely available information about the star or hiring for a
major film should have put them on notice. It lowers
the bar for proving they should.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Have known, and based on that alleged knowledge or willful ignorance,
the complaint goes further than just negligence, right it does.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It alleges the corporation's condone and encourage the misconduct, not
just by failing to act, but and this is another
strong claim, by providing Brand with staff and facilities to
aid in his sexual abuse of women on set.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Staff and facilities. That sounds like the guarding the door
allegation again, but broader.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
It could encompass that, but also potentially things like assistants,
dressing rooms, drivers, the general infrastructure of a film production.
The argument is that the production structure itself was weaponized
or at least made available to facilitate this alleged behavior.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Wow, so it reframes the whole set environment and.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
It tends to yes from a workplace to potentially an
environment where abuse was enabled. This culminates in a really
powerful claim about the corporate culture.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
What's the specific claim?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Paragraph one thirty eight. It alleges the corporate defendants created
and fostered an environment where sexual assault was permitted, accepted, institutionalized,
and encouraged.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That word institutionalized. That feels significant legally.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It's incredibly significant. It suggests this wasn't just a one
off failure or a single rogue actor. Institutionalized implies the
problem was embedded in the system, in the way things operated,
perhaps through repeated inaction or turning a blind eye.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
It suggests the system itself was flawed, not just the
supervision on one particular.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Day, precisely, And that kind of allegation is designed to
justify seeking major changes and damages against the institutions themselves.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Now, to hold all five companies responsible, the studio, the
production companies, the management company, they need to link them legally,
don't they, Yes.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
They do. That's where the concept of agency status comes in.
The complaint has to establish these connections.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
How does it do that?
Speaker 3 (10:57):
It alleges two key things. First, that Brand himself was
acting as an agent, servant, or employee of all five
corporate defendants at the relevant.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Times okay, connecting him to everyone.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
And second, crucially, it alleges that the corporate defendants were
agents of each other.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Why is that second part, them being agents of each
other so important?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, think about it strategically. It's often called the deep
pockets argument. If, say, the smaller production company Langley Park
is found liable, but it's also proven they were acting
as an agent for the massive parent company Warner Bros.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Discovery, then Warner Bros. Discovery could be on the hook
for Langley Park's actions or failures exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
It potentially makes the entire corporate structure liable for the
actions or omissions occurring under any part of its umbrella.
It ensures that if liability is found, the plaintiff can
seek damages from the entities with the most substantial financial resources.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Makes sense. So bringing it all together, what is the
plaintiff actually asking for in this lawsuit? What are the
damages they're seeking?
Speaker 3 (12:01):
They're seeking quite a lot across several categories. First, there
are compensatory damages. Okay, what is that cover that's meant
to compensate Jane Doe for the actual harm she allegedly suffered,
Things like severe psychological injuries, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
The personal toll, right, and.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Also economic losses passed and future medical bills, maybe lost earnings,
that kind of thing. The goal is to try and
make the victim whole again, at least financially.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
But the complaint doesn't stop there. It also asks for
punitive damages, yes, against.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Both brand and the corporate defendants.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Now, punitive damages are different, right, They're about punishment exactly.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
They aren't just about compensation. They're intended to punish the
defendants for particularly bad conduct and deter others from doing
the same thing in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Is it common to get punitive damages, especially against big corporations.
What's the standard?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
It's a high bar. You generally have to prove the
conduct wasn't just negligent but wanton, reckless and door malicious.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
And how does the complaint argue that corporations meet that standard?
Malice seems like a strong word for a company.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, The argument ties back to everything we discussed, alleging
they knew about Brand's history, they provided the facilities, they
allegedly had an employee guarding the door, They failed to
act despite visible intoxication. The plaintiff is arguing that all
this adds up to a conscious disregard for her safety,
which could be seen as reckless or malicious behavior at
(13:30):
the corporate level.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
So if they prove that level of disregard, punitive damages
could be substantial.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Potentially, Yes, they serve as a punishment and a warning
to the industry.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Are there other things requested besides money?
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yes. The plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment basically a
formal declaration from the court stating that the defendants' actions
violated New York law. It's a legal finding of.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wrongdoing and also an injunction.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Right, a permanent injunction. This is forward looking, how so
it would be a court order restraining the defendants, Brand
and the companies from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct. Again,
it forces changes in behavior or policy, while damages look backward,
and injunction tries to prevent future harm.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Okay, So, summing all this up, the real significance here,
enabled by that Adult Survivors Act, seems to be less
about just this one alleged incident and more about challenging
the system.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I think that's a fair way to put it. It's
using this specific, horrific, alleged event as a case study
to argue for broader institutional accountability in the entertainment.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Industry, accountability for how power operates on set exactly.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
The complaint essentially argues that the power, the fame, the
star status given to someone like Russell Brand wasn't just
ignored by the corporations, but was actively enabled, maybe even protected,
by a system that prioritized the star over the safety
of other employees.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
And the ASA provided the tool to bring that argument
forward years later.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
It provided the legal key to unlock that. It allows
the plaintiff to say, these powerful organizations allegedly created or
tolerated the conditions for this abuse, and they need to
be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Even now, It really shifts the focus, doesn't it, from
just the alleged perpetrator to the environment that might have
allowed it.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Absolutely, and that leaves you the listener with a pretty
complex thought, I think, which is just how difficult is
it to prove corporate liability for this kind of institutionalized failure,
as the complaint calls it, especially in industry like entertainment,
built so heavily on powerful figures and sometimes blurring lines.
When does inaction become condoning, When does failing to supervise
(15:38):
become actively enabling?
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And can a lawsuit like this actually force a meaningful
change in that kind of embedded culture.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
That's the multimillion dollar question, isn't it, And it's what
this legal filing forces us all to consider.
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Society impact, this today the place we're doing a deep
dive into a really specific source, right.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
A verified complaint in summons.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Filed in New York Supreme Court November twenty twenty three.
And this isn't just you know, rehashing a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
No, not at all. We're focusing on the actual allegations
in the document and importantly the legal mechanics behind.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
It, exactly how it targets not just a celebrity, Russell Brand,
but also several major.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Corporations, which is a key part of the strategy here.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
So the plaintiff is Jane do resident of New York,
defendants Russell Brand obviously, and then these five corporate entities.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yeah, let's listen because it matters. Warner Bros. Pictures, Ink,
Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. MBST Entertainment Inc. Vendors Bink Inc.
And Langley Park Pictures that's a.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Mix of production management, the big studio. It covers the
bases absolutely.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
But before we even get to what allegedly happened, we
need to talk about why this lawsuit can even happen
now because the events were what over a decade ago?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Right, That's the crucial piece, isn't it the legal gateway?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It really is. It's brought under the New York Adult
Survivors Act CPLR two fourteen.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
J Okay, So what does that mean for you for
someone listening?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Well, basically, claims like this usually have a time limit,
a statute of limitations. That limit would have expired ages
ago for something in twenty ten, makes sense, But the
ASA created this temporary look back window allowed people to
file claims for sexual abuse that were previously blocked by
those time limits.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So it reopened the door legally speaking.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Exactly, it turned something that was well legally impossible into
a live case, and that changes everything for these companies
looking back at past events.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Huge implication for potential liability from way back.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
When precisely it lets the plaintiff connect the alleged twenty
ten incident to this filing in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Okay, So using that act is the bridge. Let's talk
about the setting described in the complaint where and when?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Right? The complaint is very specific. It's the set of
the movie Arthur the Remake. Okay, I remember that film
filming in New York County. The date given is on
or about July seventh, twenty ten, and the location specifically
during filming at La Cirque restaurant, you know the famous.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Spot, right, and the plaintiff Jane Doe. She was working
on the film.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Yes, employed as an actor. The complaint clarifies she was
an extra on set that day.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And the complaint it seems to set a scene pretty quickly,
doesn't it about Brand's condition?
Speaker 3 (02:42):
It does. It alleges that on that specific day, July seventh,
Brand was visibly intoxicated, visibly intoxicated on set, yes, and
carrying an open bottle of alcohol right there at La
Cirque while filming was happening or about to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Wow. And why is that that detail included so prominently.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Because the plaintiff uses it as like the first example
of negligence by the companies.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
The argument is, here's the star visibly drunk with alcohol
on their set, and nobody stepped in. No one from
the corporate defendants or their teams did anything to well
manage the situation or protect the environment.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
So that's the first alleged failure to supervise a moment.
They saw it or should have seen it, and did nothing.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
That's the core of the argument for that specific detail.
It sets up this idea that the environment was permissive,
maybe even uncontrolled, which.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Then leads into the first specific alleged incident. Let's walk
through that timeline as laid out in the complaint. It
starts publicly.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Yes, the first allegend encounter is described as happening openly.
Plaintiff was sitting at a table waiting, brand allegedly makes
eye contact. Then the complaint alleges he pulled his erect
penis out of his pants in an open and obvious manner,
facing her.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Directly, openly in front of others.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
That's the allegation in the presence of everyone on set,
which would include employees of these corporate defendants.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
And the complaint stresses the reaction, or the lack of
one exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
That's critical for the corporate liability part. It alleges no
one disciplined him, No one reprimanded him. No one sept
in to protect the plaintiff or frankly, anyone else.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So the inaction itself is a key allegation.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Yes, the complaint says the behavior was treated as acceptable,
and if that was acceptable, the argument goes, it essentially
greenlit further worse behavior. It fostered an environment where misconduct could.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Escalate, which, according to the complaint, it did. Later that day,
there's a second alleged incident.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
That's right, the setting changes. It's during a break. Plaintiff
goes into a multi stall restroom, Okay, when she comes
out of her stall, the complaint alleges Brand was inside
the restroom, waiting.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Inside the women's restroom or just a general restroom.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
The complaint specifies a multi stall restroom, implying a public
or shared one on set, and it alleges he was
physically blocking the exit with.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
His body blocking the exit.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
And again again, pants pulled down, erect penis exposed, according to.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
The filing, and this is where the alleged assault happens.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Yes, in that confined space, the complaint states she was
very scared. He allegedly pressed himself against her back, forced
her into a stall, repeatedly asked her to kiss his
penis and then allegedly forced her head down, initiating oral sex.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And how did it end.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
She managed to push him away and escaped the stall,
escape the restroom. That's how the complaint describes it.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
So those alleged actions form the basis for the direct
claims against Brand himself right sexual assault, battery.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Correct sexual assault, sexual battery, false imprisonment because she was
allegedly blocked in, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those
are the specific torques the civil wrongs alleged against him personally.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
But there's a detail about her escape that seems aimed
squarely at the corporate.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
There is, and it's a really stark allegation. What is it?
The complaint alleges that when she finally got out of
the bathroom, there was production crew member standing directly outside.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
The door, just standing there.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Not just standing there. The allegation is specific positioned as
if they were guarding the door to ensure that Brand
would not be.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Interrupted guarding the door. That's a huge leap from just
failing to supervise.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
It's an enormous leap. It shifts the claim from negligence
failing to act to perpetial complicity or active facilitation taking
an action having an employee posted there that allegedly enabled
the assault.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
If true, that directly involves an employee of one or
more of the corporate defendants.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Precisely, it alleges active participation by the production apparatus itself
and the immediate aftermath for the plaintiff.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
What does the complaint say happen to her job on
the film?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
It says she wasn't asked back for the next two
days of filming she was scheduled for. She was only
paid for that one day, July seventh.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, so let's pivot now to how the lawsuit tries
to legally tie all this back to those five companies,
Warner Bros. Mbst the others. This is the core legal strategy, right,
proving corporate culpability.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Absolutely. This is where the heavy lifting in the legal
argument happens. It revolves around a concept called negligent hiring,
retention and supervision.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Okay, break that down for US. Negligent hiring retention, supervision, Sure, it.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Basically means the plaintiff is arguing the companies failed in
their duty to keep the workplace safe in three ways.
One hiring. They hired Brand when they allegedly knew or
should have known, he had tendencies towards this kind of behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
To retention.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Retention, they kept him employed, kept him as the star,
even after they had reason to know he was a risk,
maybe based on prior incidents or warnings. And three supervision
supervision while he was actually on their set, using their facilities,
working for them, they failed to adequately watch him, control him,
or intervene when he acted inappropriately, like the alleged intoxication
(07:59):
or the exposure incident.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Okay, but the companies might argue, how could we know
about his private behavior or past issues. How does the
complaint address that new and or should have known standard.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
That's a critical point. The complaint argues, this wasn't some
hidden secret. It points directly to Brand's publicly reported history.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Ah so they cite media report.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, explicitly, it mentioned specific things allegations made publicly by
four other women spanning from twenty six to twenty thirteen.
It references alleged incidents of him flashing people on the
sets of the BBC and Channel four.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
So public knowledge stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Right, and maybe most damagingly, it mentions allegations that some
of Brand's own colleagues felt like their job involved helping
him meet young women, making them feel like and this
is the word used pimps.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Citing those public reports seems tactically important. It suggests the
companies didn't need some secret internal memo to be aware exactly.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
It argues that basic due diligence, just paying attention to
widely available information about the star or hiring for a
major film should have put them on notice. It lowers
the bar for proving they should.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Have known, and based on that alleged knowledge or willful ignorance,
the complaint goes further than just negligence, right it does.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It alleges the corporation's condone and encourage the misconduct, not
just by failing to act, but and this is another
strong claim, by providing Brand with staff and facilities to
aid in his sexual abuse of women on set.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Staff and facilities. That sounds like the guarding the door
allegation again, but broader.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
It could encompass that, but also potentially things like assistants,
dressing rooms, drivers, the general infrastructure of a film production.
The argument is that the production structure itself was weaponized
or at least made available to facilitate this alleged behavior.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Wow, so it reframes the whole set environment and.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
It tends to yes from a workplace to potentially an
environment where abuse was enabled. This culminates in a really
powerful claim about the corporate culture.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
What's the specific claim?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Paragraph one thirty eight. It alleges the corporate defendants created
and fostered an environment where sexual assault was permitted, accepted, institutionalized,
and encouraged.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That word institutionalized. That feels significant legally.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It's incredibly significant. It suggests this wasn't just a one
off failure or a single rogue actor. Institutionalized implies the
problem was embedded in the system, in the way things operated,
perhaps through repeated inaction or turning a blind eye.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
It suggests the system itself was flawed, not just the
supervision on one particular.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Day, precisely, And that kind of allegation is designed to
justify seeking major changes and damages against the institutions themselves.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Now, to hold all five companies responsible, the studio, the
production companies, the management company, they need to link them legally,
don't they, Yes.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
They do. That's where the concept of agency status comes in.
The complaint has to establish these connections.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
How does it do that?
Speaker 3 (10:57):
It alleges two key things. First, that Brand himself was
acting as an agent, servant, or employee of all five
corporate defendants at the relevant.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Times okay, connecting him to everyone.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
And second, crucially, it alleges that the corporate defendants were
agents of each other.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Why is that second part, them being agents of each
other so important?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, think about it strategically. It's often called the deep
pockets argument. If, say, the smaller production company Langley Park
is found liable, but it's also proven they were acting
as an agent for the massive parent company Warner Bros.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Discovery, then Warner Bros. Discovery could be on the hook
for Langley Park's actions or failures exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
It potentially makes the entire corporate structure liable for the
actions or omissions occurring under any part of its umbrella.
It ensures that if liability is found, the plaintiff can
seek damages from the entities with the most substantial financial resources.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Makes sense. So bringing it all together, what is the
plaintiff actually asking for in this lawsuit? What are the
damages they're seeking?
Speaker 3 (12:01):
They're seeking quite a lot across several categories. First, there
are compensatory damages. Okay, what is that cover that's meant
to compensate Jane Doe for the actual harm she allegedly suffered,
Things like severe psychological injuries, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
The personal toll, right, and.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Also economic losses passed and future medical bills, maybe lost earnings,
that kind of thing. The goal is to try and
make the victim whole again, at least financially.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
But the complaint doesn't stop there. It also asks for
punitive damages, yes, against.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Both brand and the corporate defendants.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Now, punitive damages are different, right, They're about punishment exactly.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
They aren't just about compensation. They're intended to punish the
defendants for particularly bad conduct and deter others from doing
the same thing in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Is it common to get punitive damages, especially against big corporations.
What's the standard?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
It's a high bar. You generally have to prove the
conduct wasn't just negligent but wanton, reckless and door malicious.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
And how does the complaint argue that corporations meet that standard?
Malice seems like a strong word for a company.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, The argument ties back to everything we discussed, alleging
they knew about Brand's history, they provided the facilities, they
allegedly had an employee guarding the door, They failed to
act despite visible intoxication. The plaintiff is arguing that all
this adds up to a conscious disregard for her safety,
which could be seen as reckless or malicious behavior at
(13:30):
the corporate level.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
So if they prove that level of disregard, punitive damages
could be substantial.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Potentially, Yes, they serve as a punishment and a warning
to the industry.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Are there other things requested besides money?
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yes. The plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment basically a
formal declaration from the court stating that the defendants' actions
violated New York law. It's a legal finding of.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wrongdoing and also an injunction.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Right, a permanent injunction. This is forward looking, how so
it would be a court order restraining the defendants, Brand
and the companies from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct. Again,
it forces changes in behavior or policy, while damages look backward,
and injunction tries to prevent future harm.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Okay, So, summing all this up, the real significance here,
enabled by that Adult Survivors Act, seems to be less
about just this one alleged incident and more about challenging
the system.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I think that's a fair way to put it. It's
using this specific, horrific, alleged event as a case study
to argue for broader institutional accountability in the entertainment.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Industry, accountability for how power operates on set exactly.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
The complaint essentially argues that the power, the fame, the
star status given to someone like Russell Brand wasn't just
ignored by the corporations, but was actively enabled, maybe even protected,
by a system that prioritized the star over the safety
of other employees.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
And the ASA provided the tool to bring that argument
forward years later.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
It provided the legal key to unlock that. It allows
the plaintiff to say, these powerful organizations allegedly created or
tolerated the conditions for this abuse, and they need to
be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Even now, It really shifts the focus, doesn't it, from
just the alleged perpetrator to the environment that might have
allowed it.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Absolutely, and that leaves you the listener with a pretty
complex thought, I think, which is just how difficult is
it to prove corporate liability for this kind of institutionalized failure,
as the complaint calls it, especially in industry like entertainment,
built so heavily on powerful figures and sometimes blurring lines.
When does inaction become condoning, When does failing to supervise
(15:38):
become actively enabling?
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And can a lawsuit like this actually force a meaningful
change in that kind of embedded culture.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
That's the multimillion dollar question, isn't it, And it's what
this legal filing forces us all to consider.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.