b Scott Bet Viacom Complaint-blank

8/22/2019 b Scott Bet Viacom Complaint-blank

1/13

1

Complaint

WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, ESQ. (SBN: 168228)LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q. McCOY703 Market Street, Suite 1300San Francisco, California 94103Telephone: (415) 675-7705Facsimile: (415) 675-2530E-mail: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffBRANDON SESSOMS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BRANDON SESSOMS, a.k.a. B. SCOTT, anindividual,Plaintiff,

vs.

BET NETWORKS, Inc., VIACOM, Inc., andDOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No.

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. DISCRIMINATION BASED ONGENDER IDENTITY/GENDEREXPRESSION

2. DISCRIMINAITON BASED ONSEXUAL ORIENTATION

3. VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVILRIGHTS ACT

4. BREACH OF CONTRACT5. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

$2,500,000 IN COMPENSATORY

DAMAGES REQUESTED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION1. This is an action for damages for Discrimination on the Basis of Gender

Identity/Gender Expression and Sexual Orientation under the California Fair


2/13

2

Complaint

Employment and Housing Act, Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Unlawful

Termination, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

II. THE PARTIES2. Plaintiff Brandon Sessoms, aka B. SCOTT ("B. SCOTT") is an openly gay TV

and Internet Personality, Advice Columnist and Entrepreneur. B. SCOTT identifies

his gender identity as transgender. B. SCOTTs gender identity is separate and

distinct from his sexual orientation.

3. At the time of this complaint, B. SCOTT is a resident of the County of LosAngeles.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BETNetwork (BET), which is a holding Company of Viacom, Inc., is a corporation

doing business in California. BET falsely holds itself out as being a Corporation

that embraces global diversity in all of its forms. BET has boasted about

maintaining an inclusive workforce and a culture that values all perspectives and

backgrounds. The conduct of BET giving rise to the factual basis of this lawsuit

occurred within the city of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, which was

the location of B. SCOTTs former employment and the locus of the discriminatory

acts. Therefore venue is proper before this Court.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Viacom, Inc.(VIACOM) promulgates, imposes, and enforces policies, procedures, and

guidelines in its wholly-owned subsidiary, BET, which resulted in the complained-of

violations of Plaintiffs rights.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Viacom, Inc.(VIACOM) exercises control, supervision, and dominion over its wholly-owned

subsidiary, BET and the employees, managers, and directors thereof, who motivated,

actuated, and/or perpetrated the complained-of violations of Plaintiffs rights.

7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein asDOES 1-20, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious


3/13

3

Complaint

names. Plaintiff will ask for leave of the court to amend this complaint to allege

their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes

and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants are responsible

in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein and that B.

SCOTT's injuries as alleged were proximately caused by such aforementioned

defendants.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentionedherein, each of the defendants were and are the agent, employee and/or servant of

each defendant and committed the occurrences, acts and omissions complained of

herein while acting within the scope of such agency, employment and servitude.

Each defendant is responsible for the occurrences, acts and omissions of each other

defendant complained of herein.

III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS9. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.10. On Thursday May 16, 2013, B. SCOTT had dinner with his good friend Mariah

Carey, Rachel McIntosh, Stephen Hill (President of Programming and Specials at

BET), Liron Dagan, Randy Jackson, and his wife Elizabeth.

11. At that dinner, during a conversation between B. SCOTT and Stephen Hill, it wassuggested to Mr. Hill that he needed someone like B. Scott for the 2013 BET

Awards. B. SCOTT also detailed that he had previously appeared twice on BETs

show "106 and Park.

12. Stephen Hill agreed that B. SCOTT should have some role as a presenter for BETat the annual BET Awards Pre-Show, and Mr. Hill asked who had previously

booked B. SCOTT for his BET appearances. B. SCOTT told Mr. Hill that Rhonda

Cowan, a representative of BET, had previously booked B. SCOTT.

13. Mr. Hill then stated that "I have something in mind that will be perfect for you."14. Subsequently on May 23, 2013, Rhonda Cowan contacted B. SCOTT and offered

B. Scott the job to be the Style Stage Correspondent for the 2013 BET Awards 106


4/13

4

Complaint

and Park Pre-Show. B. Scott was told that he would be the sole host commenting on

fashion during the pre-show activities.

15. During the discussions on May 23, 2013, Ms. Cowan informed B. SCOTT thatStephen Hill and BET liked B. SCOTT's look from the dinner party. B. SCOTT was

not told that there would be appearance restrictions based on gender expression for

B. SCOTT.

16. B. SCOTT had previously appeared on BET's 106 and Park twice. On bothoccasions, there was never an issue with B. SCOTT`s appearance or manner of

dress. B. SCOTT`s transgender persona and manner of appearance are well-known

and obvious. B. SCOTT was engaged by BET Networks and their parent company

Viacom.

17. From May 23, 2013 through June 29, 2013, there was an ongoing dialoguebetween BETs Rhonda Cowan and Stephanie Hodges, and B. SCOTT about

wardrobe and approvals of his outfit for the pre-show. BET and VIACOM had full

knowledge of B. Scotts personality and style before hiring him as correspondent for

the pre-show.

18. On June 30, 2013, while B. SCOTT was preparing for the event in his trailer, BETproducers met, talked with, and observed B. SCOTT in his preparation and saw how

he appeared (including makeup, the outfit, and heeled shoes). BET staff even took B.

SCOTT's outfit to be steamed and readied for his presentation. During the event on

June 30, 2013, B. SCOTT was in contact with, aided by, and observed by numerous

BET Networks personnel, including stylists, sponsors, producers, and other staff.

19. During the preparations on June 30, 2013, BET`s stylists prepared him for theshow, he wore an outfit that producers had pre-approved a flowing black tunic and

black pants. In fact, the night before the show at B. SCOTTs home a BET producer

(Stephanie Hodges) saw and approved the ensemble that B. SCOTT initially wore

for the awards show.

20. After dressing, B. SCOTT was escorted to the stage by BET`s production team.


5/13

5

Complaint

21. After his first segment, B. SCOTT was literally yanked backstage and told that he"wasn't acceptable." B. SCOTT was told to mute the makeup, pull back his hair and

that he was forced to remove his clothing and take off his heels; thereby completely

changing his gender identity and expression. They forced him to change into solely

Mens clothing, different from the androgynous style of dress hes used to, which he

was uncomfortable with. BET and VIACOM made him feel less than his colleagues

and made him feel that something was wrong with him as a person.

22. BET refused to allow B. SCOTT to continue presenting, replacing him withAdrienne Bailon.

23. A sponsor corporation`s representative approached B. SCOTT and informed himthat someone on-site from BET had made the decision to pull B. SCOTT from his

duties on account of his transgendered appearance [and that the sponsor corporation

did not make or approve that decision].

24. BET and VIACOMs actions publicly and privately humiliated B. SCOTT, andsubjected him to ridicule and unfair treatment on the basis of his gender identity and

sexual orientation.

25. Apparently realizing the error of the situation, the sponsor corporation'srepresentative made a few phone calls and B. SCOTT was added back at the very

end of the show in a diminished capacity as co-host alongside Adrienne Bailon. He

was added back to the show only after a complete change in his wardrobe and

appearance.

26. This action was too little and too late to prevent substantial harm to B. SCOTT`spublic persona and reputation, or to prevent or ameliorate the substantial emotional

distress that he was subjected to by the events.

27. Plaintiff is informed and believe that other presenters/correspondents (i.e. such asAngela Simmons) were given substantial budgets, while B. SCOTT was not given a

budget at all and was never paid.


6/13

6

Complaint

28. Plaintiff is informed and believe that other presenters/correspondents receivedfinancial remuneration for their work, either directly or indirectly, which was denied

to B. SCOTT on the basis of his gender identity, gender expression, and/or sexual

orientation.

29. Therefore, B. SCOTT was clearly mistreated on account of his gender identity andsexual orientation by one of BET`s management or high-level producers. This

discrimination occurred because B. SCOTTs gender identity and expression did not

conform to gender norms. No other correspondent was restricted in their hair,

makeup, clothing, or footwear at any time during the pre-show or BET awards. BET

has had hordes of females twerking in mini skirts, sparkly bras and other red

carpet/stage wear, without incident. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believe that

BET and VIACOM have no problems in broadcasting imagery objectifying women.

30. Plaintiff is informed and believe and it is well known that BET has been criticizedfor promoting, in programming, blatant sexism and anti-intellectualism and further

intentionally promoting anti-black stereotypes.

31. After discussions with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation(GLADD), BET made the following statement regarding the incidents what they

characterized as an apology:

the incident was a singular one with a series of unfortunate miscommunications

from both parties. We regret any unintentional offense to B. Scott and anyone within

the LGBT community and we seek to embracing all gender expressions.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BET and VIACOM has had a series ofincidents with gay, lesbian and transgender individual and that the Defendant

Corporations do not embrace all gender expressions.

33. On or around July 8, 2013, B. SCOTT filed a California Department of FairEmployment and Housing complaint against BET for the forms of discrimination

alleged herein, and obtained a right to sue letter.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION


7/13

7

Complaint

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER EXPRESSIONGovernment Code 12940(a)

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.35. B. SCOTT was employed by BET Networks for the purposes of the 106 and Park

Pre-Show. B. SCOTT received compensation from such work in the form of

services, transportation, goods, and directly-provided, not otherwise available

publicity.

36. B. SCOTT also expected to receive compensation and/or future, continuedemployment in exchange for his services as a presenter. The services B. SCOTT

performed were such that a reasonable person would expect valuable consideration

for their performance.

37. B. SCOTT initially thought that he was going to get paid for the job and that theyhad a budget for him.

38. Furthermore, other presenters received remuneration in the form of being providedbudgets and wardrobe for their presentation, while this equal compensation was

denied to B. SCOTT on the basis of his status within protected classifications.

39. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practiceof unlawful gender identity and/or gender expression discrimination in violation of

the Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter "FEHA") in connection with B.

SCOTT 's wages, benefits, work assignments, promotion opportunity, training, and

the terms and conditions of B. SCOTT's employment, and by participating in,

sanctioning, or ratifying the age-based disparate treatment and/or discriminatory

working conditions. Further, as stated above, B. Scott was made to mute his

makeup, pull back his hair, forced to wear solely mens clothing on set, and

prohibited from wearing high heels. No other individual had any such restrictions

placed upon them while performing their job as Style Stage Correspondent for the

2013 BET Awards 106 and Park Pre-Show.

40. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of thediscriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and


8/13

8

Complaint

participated in the discrimination. As a result of the hostile and offensive work

environment perpetrated and maintained by Defendants, and Defendants' failure to

protect B. SCOTT from further discrimination, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional

distress, humiliation and loss of income.

41. B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that he was disparatelytreated during his employment at BET because of his gender identity and expression

thereof.

42. B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in addition to thepractices enumerated above, Defendants, each and all of them, have engaged in other

discriminatory practices against B. SCOTT, which are not yet fully known. At such

time as said discriminatory practices become known to B. SCOTT, Plaintiff will

seek leave of court to amend this complaint in those regards.

43. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentionaldiscrimination against B. SCOTT, and the failure to act by Defendants, B. SCOTT

has suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. B. SCOTT is thereby entitled

to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

44. Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in theconscious disregard of B. SCOTT's rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted

against Defendants in order to punish and make an example of each of them.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATIONGovernment Code 12940(a)

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.46. B. SCOTT was employed by BET Networks for the purposes of the 106 and Park

Pre-Show. B. SCOTT received compensation from such work in the form of

services, transportation, goods, and directly-provided, not otherwise available

publicity.

47. B. SCOTT also expected to receive compensation and/or future, continuedemployment in exchange for his services as a presenter. The services B. SCOTT


9/13

9

Complaint

performed were such that a reasonable person would expect valuable consideration

for their performance.

48. B. SCOTT initially thought that he was going to get paid and that they had abudget for him.

49. Furthermore, other presenters received remuneration in the form of being providedbudgets and wardrobe for their presentation, while this equal compensation was

denied to B. SCOTT on the basis of his status within protected classifications.

50. Defendants, through their agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practiceof unlawful sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment

and Housing Act (hereinafter "FEHA") in connection with B. SCOTT's wages,

benefits, work assignments, promotion opportunity, training, and the terms and

conditions of B. SCOTTs employment, and by participating in, sanctioning, or

ratifying the age-based disparate treatment and/or discriminatory working

conditions.

51. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of thediscriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and

participated in the discrimination. As a result of the hostile and offensive work

environment perpetrated and maintained by Defendants, and Defendants' failure to

protect B. SCOTT from further discrimination, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional

distress, humiliation and loss of income.

52. B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that he was disparatelytreated during his employment at BET because of his sexual orientation.

53. B. SCOTT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in addition to thepractices enumerated above, Defendants, each and all of them, have engaged in other

discriminatory practices against B. SCOTT, which are not yet fully known. At such

time as said discriminatory practices become known to B. SCOTT, Plaintiff will

seek leave of court to amend this complaint in those regards.


10/13

10

Complaint

54. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentionaldiscrimination against B. SCOTT, and the failure to act by Defendants, B. SCOTT

has suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. B. SCOTT is thereby entitled

to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

55. Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in theconscious disregard of B. SCOTT's rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACTCivil Code 51 et seq.

56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.57. B. SCOTT is, was known to Defendants as, and was readily recognizable as both

gay and transgender.

58. Each and every Defendant, as described herein, was motivated by prejudiceagainst B. SCOTT.

59. Defendants violated B. SCOTTs rights under California Civil Code Section 51.5by discriminating, boycotting, blacklisting, or refusing to contract or trade with B.

SCOTT on account of his characteristics of sexual orientation and/or gender, and/or

gender expression, which are characteristics protected thereunder by inclusion in

Civil Code Section 51(b) and 51(e).

60. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, B. SCOTT suffersdamages as set forth elsewhere within this complaint.

61. Defendants' acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in theconscious disregard of B. SCOTTs rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.63. B. SCOTT and Defendants entered into an implied contract for services.


11/13

11

Complaint

64. B. SCOTT performed (or was excused from performing) all (or substantially all)material and significant things required by the contract.

65. All conditions required for Defendants performance under the contract were met.66. Defendants breached the implied contract for services.67. Defendants breached the implied contract for services by, inter alia, failing toprovide the agreed-to compensation.

68. Defendants breached the implied contract for services by, inter alia, breachingtheir duty of good faith and fair dealing.

69. As a proximate result of Defendants' breach of their contract, B. SCOTT suffers

damages as set forth elsewhere within this complaint.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIONWRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.71. B. SCOTT was unlawfully constructively discharged as a result of the

fundamental alteration of his terms and conditions of employment due to the

discrimination he suffered.

72. B. SCOTTs unlawful constructive termination from his employment with BET isbased upon Defendants violation of public policy, including but not limited to, the

fundamental public policies against discrimination based on his gender identity,

gender expression, and sexual orientation.

73. As a further proximate result of such conduct, B. SCOTT has suffered loss ofincome, loss of promotions, loss of career opportunities, and loss of tangible job

benefits, all in amounts to be proven at trial.

74. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulentlyand oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure B. SCOTT, from an improper

and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of B. SCOTTs

rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by

Defendants. B. SCOTT is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from

Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.


12/13

12

Complaint

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of the above paragraphs.76. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BET by and

through its agents, employees, decided without regard to the health and safety of B.

SCOTT, and all and each of them treated B. SCOTT in the deplorable manner

alleged herein. That treatment and its surrounding consequences constituted extreme

and outrageous conduct by Defendants.

77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, standing ina position of authority over B. SCOTT, acted with deliberation without regard to the

health, safety, or well-being of B. SCOTT and caused him severe emotional and

physical distress.

78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a proximate result ofDefendants extreme and outrageous acts, B. SCOTT suffered severe emotional

distress in the form of humiliation, embarrassment, mental-anguish, anxiety, stress

and indignation. Defendants acts were done with the willful knowledge that B.

SCOTT could suffer severe harm as a result thereof.

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants acts allegedherein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in conscious disregard of B.

SCOTTs rights. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants in

order to punish them and make an example of their actions.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount in excess of two million five hundred thousanddollars ($2,500,000.00) and in no event in an amount less than the jurisdictionallimit of this court;

2. For special damages in amounts according to proof;

3. For punitive damages in amounts according to proof;

4. For attorneys' fees as provided by law;


13/13

13

5. For interest as provided by law;

6. For cost of suit incurred herein; and

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just.

Dated: August 6, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN McCOY

__________________________WAUKEEN McCOY, ESQ.ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFBRANDON SESSOMS, a.k.a. B. SCOTT

Documents

b Scott Bet Viacom Complaint-blank