Megan’s lawyers say the amended employment lawsuit from her former photographer is ‘riddled with scandalous, inappropriate, and irrelevant false allegations.’
Megan Thee Stallion’s former photographer is accusing her of harassment and retaliation in a new version of his employment lawsuit that cites her “hypersexualized and graphic lyrics.”
An amended complaint filed Monday says the 29-year-old rapper, legal name Megan Pete, “blended” her provocative approach to music “into the working relationship between Pete and her employees, as she subjected Plaintiff to unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on numerous occasions.”
The 54-page filing adds 10 claims to the original lawsuit, which said photographer Emilio Garcia was wrongly classified as an independent contractor and is owed money for rest breaks and overtime he should have received as a full-time employee.
The complaint also adds new allegations about a February 2022 visit to a New York City strip club and says Megan shamed Garcia for eating when she was dieting, and it repeats allegations that Megan harassed Garcia and subjected him to a hostile work environment, including by having sex with another woman in front of him while they were in a car in Ibiza, Spain, in June 2022.
It also describes specific sexual acts between Megan and three friends during the Ibiza car ride and says Megan’s October 2024 song “Best Friends” references the incident with the lyrics:
“Ayy, two red bones kissin’ in the back seat
Girl, don’t stop, keep goin’ and relax me
You want me to join in? Then ask me
I like girls that like girls, that attract me”
A screenshot from the amended complaint.
The new complaint also accuses Pete of throwing a TV remote at Garcia’s head in a hotel room in August 2022.
“Clearly, Pete was both physically and mentally intimidating Plaintiff in an effort to keep him silence about what took place in Ibiza, Spain, amongst other unlawful acts detailed herein,” the complaint says.
Megan’s lawyers have previously denied Garcia witnessed anything in the car in Ibiza, and they said he intentionally sensationalized “a run of the mill wage and labor dispute” “with sensationalist claims of sex, debauchery, and workplace harassment.”
The amended complaint, they said, is “riddled with scandalous, inappropriate, and irrelevant false allegations intended only to embarrass, shame, and subject Ms. Pete to public disgrace.”
“Such outrageous allegations have no bearing on the merits of his claims; rather, they appear designed to obtain outsized media attention,” according to a Dec. 20 letter from Joanna E. Menillo of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, who represents Megan, and Jordan W. Siev of Reed Smith LLP, who represents her management company, Jay-Z’s Roc Nation.
They also said the lawsuit cites Megan’s lyrics in a way that violates California’s anti-SLAPP law, or anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation.
The letter asked U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods in the Southern District of New York to reject the amended complaint, but the attorneys agreed last week to allow the filing without objection but also “without waiver of any arguments they may choose to put forth in favor of dismissal.”
Garcia is represented by Ronald L. Zambrano of West Coast Trial Lawyers in Los Angeles and Joseph Jeziorkowski, Daniel Folchetti and William Knight of Valiant Law in White Plains, New York.
Judge changes mind about sanctioning lawyer
Last week, Zambrano enjoyed a reversal of fortune when Judge Woods decided not to sanction him for missing a Nov. 6 status conference in Manhattan.
Woods on Nov. 19 said Zambrano’s belief that he could attend the conference via telephone was “not substantially justified.” As a sanction, the judge ordered Zambrano to pay the money Megan’s and Roc Nation’s attorneys charged to attend the conference.
The defense attorneys asked for $4,736.70: Siev, a licensed attorney in New York since 1989, billed 1 1/2 hours at $1,750 an hour and Menillo, a licensed New York attorney since 2016, billed 1 1/2 hours at $1,295 an hour.
Zambrano opposed “on procedural grounds,” arguing that Woods didn’t have jurisdiction over him because he was not yet admitted to practice in the district, thus the judge need to find he acted in bad faith to sanction him. He also argued he didn’t fail to appear because he tried to appear remotely.
“The hearing would not have been in vain, requiring all counsel and the Court to reset the hearing, had Mr. Zambrano been allowed to appear remotely,” according to the Dec. 10 filing. “While this opposing party does not debate the Court’s finding that Mr. Zambrano was on notice of the local rules requiring in-person appearance and could have sought a continuance, there is no finding Mr. Zambrano’s belief a remote appearance was an option (however erroneous) was unfounded or unreasonable.”
Woods, a 2013 Barack Obama appointee, cut Zambrano a break in an order issued Jan. 7.
The judge rejected Zambrano’s argue that he doesn’t have jurisdiction to sanction, but he said he “reconsidered whether Mr. Zambrano’s error was substantially justified and finds that the Court could reach a more generous interpretation of ‘substantial justification.’”
“The Court chooses to follow this more forgiving approach and therefore, in its discretion, finds that Mr. Zambrano should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the November 6, 2024 conference,” Woods wrote.
A screenshot from Judge Woods’ order.
Megan’s lawyers oppose defamation lawsuit dismissal
The lawsuit against Megan comes as she’s pursuing her own lawsuit against online commentator Milagro Cooper.
Megan’s lawyers filed an amended complaint against Cooper last month in the Southern District of New York that says rapper Daystar “Tory Lanez” Peterson is using Cooper to help harass Megan as he serves a 10-year prison sentence for shooting her and injuring her feet in July 2020.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge last week barred Lanez from making any contact with Megan for the next five years under a new civil harassment restraining order issued at her request. Cooper is represented by Michael Hayden of Unite the People in Long Beach, who’s also representing Lanez. Cooper also is represented by Michael Pancier of Pembroke Pines, Florida.
Megan testified via video during the restraining order hearing from her home in Florida. She said she “hasn’t been at peace since I’ve been shot, and I’m just tired of being harassed.”
“I feel like maybe he’ll shoot me again, and maybe this — maybe this time I won’t make it,” Megan said, choking back tears.
Megan’s lawyers cited the lawsuit against Cooper in their restraining order petition and said she has a “business relationship” with Lanez’s father, Sonstar Peterson.
Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Pancier filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Cooper on Dec. 23. The motion says the statements Megan’s lawyers say are defamatory are “clearly opinion and rhetorical hyperbole,” including, “We know you a lying ass hoe, and you have absolutely ruined Tory’s life.” Pancier said Cooper’s later comments show she was referring to a TV interview in which Megan denied having a sexual relationship with Lanez.
“The content appears to be a stream of personal opinions and reactions expressed in a confrontational tone,” Pancier wrote.
Megan’s lawyers said in a reply filed Monday that the lawsuit “is not about the right to express opinions on a criminal trial or a plaintiff’s attempt to silence opinions she disagrees with, despite what the Motion to Dismiss would have the Court believe.”
“Instead, it is about a malicious smear campaign undertaken for the sole
purpose of harming Ms. Pete in retaliation for her defiance of a violent criminal,” according to the filing.
I’ll write a full article when the judge rules. The case is with U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, who is the chief federal judge in Miami, Florida.
Court documents:
April 22 original complaint
May 29 notice of removal
Nov. 19 sanctions order
Dec. 2 attorney fee motion
Dec. 10 fee opposition
Dec. 13 reply to opposition
Dec. 19 request to file amended complaint
Dec. 20 opposition
Jan. 7 Judge Woods changes mind on sanctions
Jan. 14 amended complaint
