Kevin Costner Sued By ‘Horizon 2’ Stunt Performer Over Unscripted Rape Scene

One day in May 2023, stunt performer Devyn LaBella showed up to the Utah set of Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 2, the second part of the sprawling Western series from Kevin Costner, expecting to double for one of the film’s stars in some basic, fairly boring shots. Instead, she says, she was surprised by being subjected to an unscripted, brutal rape scene without proper notice, consent or the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

Now, LaBella is suing Costner and the film’s production companies for sexual discrimination, harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment. Moreover, the complaint alleges LaBella faced retaliation after she reported the incident by not being called back for subsequent work on the Horizon series and never being hired again by the film’s stunt coordinator, with whom she had worked previously.

“On that day, I was left exposed, unprotected, and deeply betrayed by a system that promised safety and professionalism,” LaBella said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “What happened to me shattered my trust and forever changed how I move through this industry.”

In a statement, Costner’s attorney Marty Singer said his client “always wants to make sure that everyone is comfortable working on his films and takes safety on set very seriously.” He says, however, that the lawsuit has “absolutely no merit” and is “completely contradicted by [LaBella’s] own actions — and the facts.”

The suit represents the latest legal battle for Horizon, as Costner’s loan-out firm for the series was recently hit with an arbitration claim for allegedly breaching its co-financing agreement with New Line Cinema. This complaint was filed after settlement discussions with Costner and production company representatives broke down, says James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini, one of the attorneys representing LaBella, with support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund.

The Horizon series is the product of decades of hustle from Costner, a veteran of the Western epic, from Dances With Wolves to Hatfields & McCoys to Yellowstone. With no major studio willing to fork over the cash he felt was needed, Costner invested $38 million of his own funds, with the series’ first film premiering to anemic box office in June 2024.

An ascendant stunt performer who had worked on Barbie and American Horror Stories, LaBella was hired on Horizon’s second installment as the lead stunt double for actress Ella Hunt, who plays one of the film’s main characters. Hunt’s role did involve sexual violence. As part of her contract, the lawsuit maintains, Hunt negotiated a mandatory intimacy coordinator on all nude or intimate scenes, which, as her stunt double, would apply to LaBella as well. Moreover, given that Hunt and LaBella are members of the performers union SAG-AFTRA, their intimate scenes would also be subject to the labor group’s regulations, which call for prior notice, consent and a closed set.

Everything went by the book for a scripted rape scene that shot on May 1, according to the suit: The scene — where LaBella performed the more physical, rough aspects of the action — was detailed on the day’s call sheet, rehearsed with a stunt coordinator and an intimacy coordinator, later monitored by that intimacy coordinator, took place on a closed set and was structured such that performers got breaks in between shots.

But rules were allegedly thrown out the window the next day, when LaBella showed up on set to double for two non-intimate sequences and was asked by Costner to stand in for Hunt for a shot. Unbeknownst to LaBella, the complaint claims, Hunt had just walked off of the set, “visibly upset,” after Costner told her he had just added an impromptu scene of sexual violence perpetuated by a different character than the previous day’s scene.

LaBella, instructed to lay down on a wagon, allegedly only found out that this was a rape scene after Costner called for actor Roger Ivens to simulate nonconsensual sex on top of her: “Mr. Ivens violently rustled Ms. LaBella’s skirt up as if trying to penetrate her against her will” while pinning her down per the director’s orders, the complaint states. No notice had been given, the scene had not been rehearsed, no intimacy coordinator was on set and all of the action was aired on monitors that could be viewed by the entire crew, according to the suit.

Costner’s attorney Singer maintains that this was a rehearsal without cameras rolling and not a filmed scene itself. The film’s stunt coordinators were present, he added. After this rehearsal, LaBella “gave her Stunt Coordinator supervisor a ‘thumbs up’ and indicated her willingness to then shoot the scene, if needed,” he states; the scene ended up being shot with a stand-in performer and not LaBella.

The lawsuit emphasizes that Costner did not consistently call “action” or “cut” during this process, leaving LaBella without time to fully comprehend what was happening as the action repeated. Meanwhile, “Mr. Ivens never separated from Ms. LaBella,” the suit says, consistently keeping his hand on her body. Moreover, the complaint claims the wardrobe department had not prepared LaBella for her undergarments to be exposed, as they were by the directions Costner was giving Ivens.

The complaint describes LaBella as shaken and “terrified” following this experience. Afterward, she raised concerns and made complaints to several stunt coordinators and to the film’s intimacy coordinator, later feeling that many in the production team were treating her with kid gloves, the suit states. She received some apologies from colleagues on the film, but was directed to stay in her trailer, fully costumed and not used on set for several days, the complaint claims.

Singer disputes that LaBella made a complaint to the film’s stunt coordinators, saying “she was in good spirits and made no complaints to them” at a dinner the night after the scene. He says that LaBella took stunt coordinator Wade Allen to a thank-you dinner following the production, and sent him a text stating, “Thank you for these wonderful weeks!”

Ultimately, LaBella was not called back for the third film in the series, and Allen did not hire her again, though he had hired her for projects before Horizon.

The lawsuit alleges that LaBella’s career came to an “abrupt halt” after the incident. Not only was Allen not hiring her again, but “the workplace, and stunt work in general, which was once a source of purpose and fulfillment, is now a place of heightened apprehension and the whole experience has left Ms. LaBella feeling ‘disposable’ and ‘worthless,’” the complaint states.

If the case goes to trial, LaBella and her attorneys are asking the jury to determine any potential punitive damages. Beyond compensation, the point of the suit is also to “address the continued failures at the highest levels of Hollywood production companies to comprehend and address the impacts of performing in sexually explicit and violent ‘scenes’ and the need for intimacy coordination,” the complaint reads.

The use of intimacy coordinators in Hollywood exploded after the #MeToo movement prompted a reappraisal of power dynamics on set. Choreographing scenes of an intimate nature, intimacy coordinators are intended to be watchdogs for performer safety and comfort. While some famous performers have embraced them (Rachel Zegler, Phoebe Dynevor), others have waved them off or said they didn’t feel they need them, like Mikey Madison and Sean Bean.

Per the lawsuit, in this case an intimacy coordinator was mandated by a performer contract, amplifying existing union protections. Says Jennifer Mondino, the senior director of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which supported the case, “The guidelines that are supposed to be followed on regular movie sets weren’t being followed.”

Adds LaBella’s lawyer Vagnini, “If it can happen on a size of a production worth $100 million or more, imagine what happens on smaller ones where you’re really trying to cut corners.”

As for Singer, he says, “The facts are clear and we are beyond confident that Kevin will prevail.”

Read The Full Article On The Hollywood Reporter

Full 5th Circ. To Examine Employer-Friendly Title VII Rule

The family behind a massive Brooklyn Navy Yards film studio complex stands accused of stiffing local partners out of $50 million in profits, a new lawsuit contends.

Steiner Studios — where films such as Steven Spielberg’s”West Side Story” and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Tick Tick Boom!” were filmed — has been named in a civil suit filed by a group of local entrepreneurs who says they developed the complex then were cut out of profits, court records show.

Continue reading

Brooklyn Movie Studio Shut Out $50M Profits From Partners

The family behind a massive Brooklyn Navy Yards film studio complex stands accused of stiffing local partners out of $50 million in profits, a new lawsuit contends.

Steiner Studios — where films such as Steven Spielberg’s”West Side Story” and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Tick Tick Boom!” were filmed — has been named in a civil suit filed by a group of local entrepreneurs who says they developed the complex then were cut out of profits, court records show.

Continue reading

Fischman v. MCHA: Privilege and Confidentiality Regarding In-House Counsel

Attorney-Client Privilege concept

Attorney-Client Privilege conceptPrivilege and Confidentiality in the Attorney Client Relationship
 Regarding In-House Counsel and Their Employer
Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.(18-cv-08188)
{3 minutes to read}  Attorney client privilege is an integral part of our legal system.  As most situations that require legal intervention are emotional and stressful, reliance on an experienced professional who will commit to your needs while keeping your information confidential has allowed millions of people to have a voice and retain their rights.Continue reading

SB7848A Increases Worker’s Ability to Bring Claims of Sexual Harassment to Court

workplace harassment formBy Shaloni Pinto and Aimee Christianson
{Read in 4 minutes}  With the passage of New York Senate Bill 7848A, the state will make it easier for workers to bring sexual harassment claims to court. Aimed to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, the bill will amend the general business law to limit the coverage of mandatory arbitration clauses in relation to sexual harassment and will also amend the labor law to promote the prevention of sexual harassment.Continue reading

Babb v. Wilkie – The ADEA and Federal Employees Over Forty

Babb v. Wilkie - The ADEA and Federal Employees Over FortyBy Shaloni Pinto and Aimee Christianson
{Read in 4 minutes}  Ms. Norris Babb alleges that her employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs, denied her advancement opportunities due to her age and gender, and retaliated against her after she filed complaints about the issue. If Ms. Babb was an employee in the private sector, she would have to test these allegations against the tried-and-true standards set by court precedent. Ms. Babb, however, is a federal employee, and the courts do not have a clear standard about how she can prove her age discrimination claim.
The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), states that any personnel actions which affect agency employees forty or older must be free from age discrimination. The “free from” wording within the law is unique to the provisions of the federal sector. The Court will answer whether a federal employee has to prove that an action was discriminatory but for her age.
Unlike public employers, private employers cannot make decisions “because of” an employee’s protected class. Both Congress and the courts have deliberated and set precedents on the standard a plaintiff must use to have a valid claim of employment discrimination. Employees in the private sector can either use the “but-for” standard or the motivating factor standard to confirm their allegations of employment discrimination. A motivating factor standard is lenient; it only requires the plaintiff to show that bias relating to their protected class influenced their employers.
Let’s examine Ms. Babb’s case to illustrate the difference between the “but-for” and “motivating factor” standard.

  • If the Court holds that federal employees under the ADEA must use the “but-for” standard, then Ms. Babb will have to prove that she would have been promoted, if not for her age. 
  • Whereas if Ms. Babb used the motivating factor standard, she would have to prove that her age was a factor within a list of other factors that the employer used to deny her opportunities for advancement.

The “but-for” standard is stricter because Ms. Babb (as a plaintiff) must investigate the motivations of the employer and put forth an explanation that ties the other party’s decision-making to the age factor.
While the federal government has argued for the stricter “but-for” interpretation, Plaintiff Babb argues that the motivating factor standard should extend to federal employees. Now, the Court must decide whether federal employees have to abide by the stricter “but-for” standard or whether a motivating factor standard is permissible.
The circuit courts have given conflicting rulings on the issue. The DC Court of Appeals has held that the motivating factor is a valid standard for federal employees. Agencies like The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged to enforce the ADEA, have followed this precedent. Yet, other federal appeals courts like the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit have adhered to a stricter standard, holding that the “but-for” causation is the only way to allege age discrimination as a federal sector employee. Thus, this decision by the Supreme Court will resolve the conflicts among the circuit court of appeals and decide whether federal employees over forty need to adhere to a strict standard when alleging age discrimination. 
Reference: Babb v. Wilkie, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4444

Supervisor sues Omni hotels, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation when she reported it

A former supervisor with Omni Hotels & Resorts has filed suit against the Dallas-based company, alleging sexual harassment and saying the company broke federal laws governing equal pay.Continue reading

Hershey Experiences Bitter Taste of Discrimination Defeat


Hershey school discrimination Somewhere in Philadelphia, a boy wanted to go to school. He came from a broken home, a challenging background. He was, however, determined. He worked hard in school, earning his place on the honor roll. He applied to the Milton Hershey School, which provides food, housing and a top-notch education to children with special needs. The Milton Hershey School turned this exceptional child down. Was it his grades? No. According to the school, the boy was denied admission because he is HIV positive.
The AIDs Law Project found out, got behind the young man and his story, and sued. Today, the Milton Hershey School is about to pay out a settlement totaling nearly $750,000. In addition, the school has issued a public apology and has offered to reconsider the potential student’s application. The case appears to have been a clear cut case of illegal discrimination.
A Painful Denial
Nine words cost the Milton Hershey School the case: “direct threat to the health and safety of others.” The school claimed that because the young man is HIV positive, he should not be allowed to live, eat and be educated with other students at Milton Hershey. Little is known about the school’s defense other than those nine words. If based solely on that, what does the school have to go on? According to the Aids Healthcare Foundation, the legal precedent for such an act was laid nearly thirty years ago, when a young man named Ryan White was expelled for being HIV positive. Now, in the 2010s, we celebrate the potential for finding a very real cure for HIV. The disease is far more manageable than it was in the days of Ryan White. In today’s reality, why would a young man with HIV pose a “direct threat to the health and safety of others?”
A History of Understanding
It has been nearly three decades since HIV first became a terrifying disease. The public’s perception of individuals was changed vastly a full two decades ago when NBA legend Magic Johnson announced he had contracted HIV. The disease was associated with homosexuality and, by definition in the mid-1980s, with homophobia. Once Magic made the announcement, it was widely accepted that HIV-positive individuals were all normal human beings tragically dealing with a potentially lethal disease. That should have been the Milton Hershey School’s point of view in 2012. However, this very real and very modern case illustrates the fact that ignorance and discrimination are alive and well in the United States and our school system.