New York City has agreed to a $60 million proposed class action settlement with homeowners whose properties were seized in Round 10 of the City’s Third Party Transfer (TPT) program without compensation for the equity they had built in their homes.
Continue reading
A former Walmart team lead has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the retail giant failed to protect him after he repeatedly reported workplace sexual harassment and ultimately retaliated against him by terminating his employment.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. Shawn White, who worked for Walmart from 2019 through 2023 at stores in Uniondale and Valley Stream, claims the company failed to properly investigate his complaints, failed to enforce its own workplace policies, and retaliated against him after he repeatedly sought help through internal reporting channels.
According to the complaint, White reported alleged harassment to supervisors, Walmart’s Ethics department, and Associate Relations over a period of several years. The lawsuit contends that the company either failed to adequately investigate his concerns or provided only limited responses without explaining what corrective action, if any, had been taken.
The complaint further alleges that after White reported the conduct, he experienced a pattern of disciplinary actions that culminated in his termination. White contends the disciplinary record was used as a pretext for retaliation, despite his history of positive performance evaluations.
“Ultimately, I just want Walmart to do better,” White said. “They have systems and things in place, or they claim to, but I wasn’t helped by that system.”
White’s attorney, Matthew Berman, from Valli Kane & Vagnini, couldn’t agree more, saying: “A harassment policy only means something if the company enforces it. Walmart had the protocols on paper, but Shawn White was left unprotected when it counted. We brought this case to turn his experience into real accountability and real change.”
White’s case has received support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center.
“Sex harassment is, at its core, about an imbalance of power. It affects people of every sex and gender identity,” Jennifer Mondino, senior director of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement. “Too often, men and people who don’t identify as women face additional stigma and disbelief when they come forward.”
Mondino added, “Workers should never face retaliation for reporting abuse, and Walmart must answer when they fail to protect their workers.”
Federal and New York law prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who report unlawful workplace harassment or discrimination. Employers also have a legal obligation to take complaints seriously and conduct appropriate investigations when concerns are raised.
Berman spoke about what this lawsuit could mean for other Walmart employees, saying “It takes real courage to come forward against a company the size of Walmart. Shawn White did it not just for himself, but so the next employee is met with protection instead of silence. We’re proud to represent him.“
White’s lawsuit seeks lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The allegations remain pending before the court, and Walmart has denied the claims by declining to comment on the active litigation.
You can read additional coverage about the case in the Long Island Herald.
If you’re an employee in New York, you have some of the strongest workplace sexual harassment protections in the country. And those protections have been getting stronger. Here’s a clear breakdown of where things stand today — what employers are required to do, what rights you have if something has already happened, and what’s changed in recent years.
Continue reading
A lot of people think workplace discrimination only “counts” if something dramatic happens — like losing your job or getting passed over for a promotion. But in New York City, the law actually widens the scope of what counts as an actionable claim, meaning if you are being treated unfairly at work, you may actually have a case. This article breaks down a key legal distinction — being treated “less well” versus experiencing an “adverse employment action” — and explains what it means for you.
Continue reading
Former MrBeast executive Lorrayne Mavromatis sued the social media company in federal court today after facing years of sexual harassment and gender bias by top leadership, including Jimmy Donaldson (popularly known as MrBeast). Mavromatis alleges that after complaining about the treatment she and other female employees faced and exercising her right to maternity leave she was ultimately terminated.
While many equate the number one YouTube channel with extreme pranks, Mavromatis’ complaint exposes an environment in which sexual harassment and hostile treatment of female employees behind the cameras was commonplace. Mavromatis alleges MrBeast’s top leadership frequently made unwelcome comments about her and other female employees’ appearance and brushed off complaints about unwanted advances and touching.
This hostile, male-dominated culture is embodied in “How to Succeed at MrBeast Production,” an employee resource authored by Jimmy Donaldson. The 36-page document states “it’s okay for the boys to be childish” and “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board, or do something stupid, let them” and instructs employees that “no does not mean no” when working on a production.
“Unfortunately, women’s voices are often silenced in workplaces, especially in male-dominated fields,” said Lorrayne Mavromatis. “This isn’t just about one moment. This is about everything that led up to it and the culture that made it possible. The expectation that women should go through things like this, stay quiet, accept it, and still show up with a smile. I’m not doing that anymore.”
In the complaint, Mavromatis alleges that the company’s former CEO James Warren, a cousin of Donaldson, made her meet him in his home for one-on-one meetings while commenting on how pretty she was and how her presence made Donaldson physically uncomfortable. Mavromatis explains in her complaint that when she asked Warren about how to navigate professional interactions with Donaldson, he said, “Well, Lorrayne, you’re beautiful. Jimmy gets really awkward around beautiful women.” Warren continued by stating, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he [Donaldson] goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.” Mavromatis claims that she began to wear baggy clothes and baseball caps to avoid her appearance and gender from negatively affecting her professional career.
The complaint details other incidents of demeaning treatment towards women at the company. Mavromatis alleges Donaldson, who has publicly stated he doesn’t drink, ordered her to bring him a beer if she wanted him to participate in her video shoot. After retrieving the drink, Donaldson took one swig of the beer and tossed it on the ground.
When Mavromatis complained about toxic behavior towards her by a male colleague, she alleges, one executive told her, “What can’t happen is you going to your uppers to complain,” they said. “That’s toxic. My team did that – they’re gone.”
In November 2023, Mavromatis submitted a complaint about the sexual harassment and hostile work conditions she and other women faced working at MrBeast to human resources head Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother and Warren’s aunt. The complaint alleges that Mavromatis was told two months later that her claims were “unsubstantiated.” She was demoted from her executive level role and transferred the very same day to a midlevel management position in a division known by employees where “careers go to die.”
“Abusive workplaces rely on a persistent lack of accountability. We see this pattern frequently, where those with influence and power are allowed to harm others and retaliate against those who decide to speak up,” said Jennifer Mondino, Senior Director of the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center, which supported media assistance for this matter. “Lorrayne has been extraordinarily brave in coming forward, and we hope she is granted a measure of justice and healing. We are in a collective fight to address a longstanding culture of harassment that relies on entrenched silence and shame. Today is a reminder that the strength of survivors is a force to be reckoned with, and we are proud to stand alongside Lorrayne.”
Mavromatis alleges that when she took maternity leave with her first child her treatment at MrBeast went from bad to worse. Mavromatis alleges that MrBeast failed to give her the legally required notice of her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and proceeded to make her work continuously during her first two months of maternity leave.
Mavromatis states just days after tending to her daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit, her supervisor began requesting her to work for MrBeast’s upcoming product launch. Three weeks after giving birth, she was asked to manage a booth at a town hall event which required long periods of standing, physical work, and being away from her newborn for 10 hours. Mavromatis, who was born in Brazil, was also asked to work on a video with Brazilian soccer star Neymar. Mavromatis alleges that company culture at MrBeast, coupled with a fear of losing her job if she refused to work, compelled her to continue to work during her maternity leave.
Upon returning to work from maternity leave, Mavromatis was fired less than three weeks later. She alleges she was told she was “too high caliber” for the position that they had demoted her to after complaining about sexual harassment and the hostile work environment. MrBeast and its new CEO Jeffrey Hosenbold has since filled Mavromatis’ former job duties with men hailing from the sports industry.
“This is a terrible example of how someone with access to unlimited resources made the decision to neglect the welfare of female employees and their access to the most fundamental legal rights and prioritize money over safety and well-being,” said Mavromatis’s attorney, James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP. “Ms. Mavromatis was not the first and will not be the last woman to experience what it was like to be sidelined and disregarded by MrBeast, but she will not be intimidated or threatened into standing down.”
The lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina follows a complaint Mavromatis filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 2025.
Devyn LaBella, who worked as a stunt double for the lead female actress in Kevin Costner’s production of Horizon II, prevailed in Court today against Kevin Costner. At Mr. Costner’s direction, on May 2nd, 2023, Ms. LaBella was subjected to an unscripted, unplanned violent rape scene, which is the basis for her suit. Defendants filed a motion to have the case dismissed, claiming that the abusive conduct was protected as part of the “creative process.” The Court resoundingly denied their motion as to eight counts.
Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP attorney, James A. Vagnini, Esq. said: “Today, the court stood with Devyn and recognized the strong merits of her case, an important step towards unveiling the truth about what happened that day and creating accountability for those who abuse their power. We hope the Defendants won’t waste any more time on frivolous motions and panicked stall tactics, and instead allow for the discovery phase, when we’ll hear directly from the witnesses on set about the events that transpired. We look forward to our continued pursuit of justice for Ms.LaBella as she bravely continues to stand her ground.”
Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP attorney, Kate McFarlane said: “The logical conclusion of the Defense argument is that you can rape or kill someone so long as it’s part of the ‘creative process.’ The creative process cannot be used as a shield for unlawful conduct.”
She went on, “Today, the Court saw through Defendants smoke and mirrors, where they attempted to hide their abhorrent behavior behind the excuse of it being part of the ‘creative process.’ The creative process cannot and does not give men in power complete impunity to abuse women like Ms. LaBella. We were confident we would prevail against Defendants on this frivolous motion, and we did. We anticipate Defendants will continue to employ similar tactics in an attempt to prevent their despicable conduct from ever reaching the eyes and ears of a jury. We won’t back down.”
Additional Press:
Kevin Costner came up quite short today in his bid to have Horizon IIstuntwoman Devyn LaBella’s sexual harassment and hostile workplace lawsuit tossed out. Still, while industry vet LaBella saw only two of her 10 claims against the Oscar winner dismissed, lawyers for Costner are already promising late Thursday to file a fast appeal.
Click through to read the rest.
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.”
“We are happy that the delays are behind us and that we will have an opportunity to depose [Manson] and present all the facts to a jury next year,” a lawyer for plaintiff Ashley Walters says
By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stones
THE ARTIST AND personal assistant who claims Marilyn Manson whipped her, threw plates at her and sexually assaulted her received a trial date Tuesday for her previously dismissed lawsuit that was revived on appeal.
Ashley Walters is now scheduled to face Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, at a jury trial set to begin June 2, 2025, a Los Angeles County judge ruled. The judge ordered the trial after Walters’ lawyer, James Vagnini, told the court that the parties were “not successful at resolving the case” during a mediation last December.
“We are happy that the delays are behind us and that we will have an opportunity to depose Mr. Warner and present all the facts to a jury next year,” Walters’ lawyer James Vagnini said in a statement to Rolling Stone. “We are confident they will acknowledge the harm done to Ms. Walters and deliver a resounding message to all survivors of such terrible abuse.”
Lawyers for Warner did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. In a court filing last month, the lawyers wrote that Warner “specifically denies that he assaulted, battered, harassed, or discriminated against plaintiff.”
Read the full article from Rolling Stone here.
By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stone
“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories,” Ashley Walters’ lawyer says.
THE FORMER ASSISTANT who claims Marilyn Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall during a drug-induced rage won a critical appeal ruling Wednesday that revives her previously dismissed lawsuit against the shock rocker.
Ashley Walters initially sued Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination in May 2021. She argued that while the alleged abuse took place during a “horrific” year of employment that ended in 2011, the typical two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020. She said the “delayed discovery” rule, which postpones the starting clock for statutes of limitations in cases where victims bury painful memories, had extended her window to file. She further alleged Warner used threatening behavior to ensure her silence.
A trial court judge considered her argument but ultimately tossed her case in May 2022, ruling she “failed to plead facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule.” Walters appealed, and a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with her Wednesday, reversing the lower court ruling and sending the case back to the judge for trial.
“Walters’s allegations of delayed discovery were sufficient to withstand demurrer, and we reverse,” the judges wrote in their ruling. They noted that while Warner’s defense team argued her allegations were “too memorable and happened too many times for her to have remembered none of it,” the court wasn’t supposed to concern itself with her ability to prove her claims at this stage of her case, only that she asserted them properly.
“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories and delayed discovery in these types of cases. I think the court is very firm in articulating a very clear decision as to why survivors have repressed memories and why that should be relevant when they come forward later in life to bring those claims,” Walters’s lawyer, James Vagnini, tells Rolling Stone. He noted that Warner’s camp also was ordered to pay the appellate costs as well. “We think that sends a message,” he says. Warner’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In court filings, Walters alleged Warner forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, threw dishes at her, pushed her into a wall, broke down doors to get to her, charged at her and forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, one time requiring her to stand on a chair for 12 hours.
Warner, 54, has denied Walters’ allegations and similar claims of abuse from more than a dozen women. In September, he reached a private settlement with a Jane Doe accuser who alleged he brutally raped her in 2011. Doe further claimed Warner deprived her of food and sleep during their abusive dating relationship and that he threatened to “bash her head in” if she reported him. That deal followed after Warner reached a separate settlement with Game of Thrones star Esmé Bianco in January. Bianco had alleged Warner raped and battered her.
Former accuser Ashley Morgan Smithline let her lawsuit end in default in January and formally recanted her allegations against Warner. A second Jane Doe sued Warner in January for sexual assault.
Read the article from Rolling Stone here.
By Sara Hammel/The Landing
As one of Delta Captain Andrea Ratfield’s attorneys, Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP is familiar with the specific and unique way airlines operate when it comes to sexual assault and harassment cases.
Her bio highlights her vast experience and professional accolades and explains, “Sara has devoted over twenty (20) years of her legal career fighting for her clients’ Civil Rights and against all varieties of employment discrimination (race, gender, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, and religion), sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims, wage and hour disputes and qui tams/whistleblower claims.”
A big thank you to Sara for giving her time to answer my questions and help victims of assault (all emphasis mine):
Q: I’ve seen a bunch of cases in the New York papers in the past year, including some high-profile lawsuits, taking advantage of the lookback window that ends very soon. (For example, a woman just filed a lawsuit against Bill Cosby alleging he drugged and raped her in the 1970s; she’s also suing the organizations her lawyer says “not only provided a platform for Mr. Cosby to showcase his fame and fortune to lure in women, but then put their own profits over the safety of their female guests by turning a blind eye to Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual assaults on women”).
A: We have received many calls from individuals looking to assert their rights under the statute. We currently represent a woman against a well-known radio personality/author. She was allegedly assaulted many many years ago and had been prohibited from bringing her claims due to the statute of limitations. She is relieved to have an avenue by which to attempt to pursue them now.
Q: What are some of the challenges in finding evidence and making a case for assaults that could be in the distant past, such as gathering old police reports and talking to witnesses? Should these potential roadblocks deter anyone from seeking legal advice about their assaults?
A: Certainly you have identified some of the potential obstacles to pursing older cases. Often, however, when someone has been the victim of an assault, they may have discussed it with a friend, family member, counselor and/or written in a journal—some type of contemporaneous confirmation of what transpired. Also, if someone does have the strength and courage to come forward many years later, it is likely that what took place is ingrained in their memories.
These cases are generally difficult regardless of whether they are brought soon thereafter or years later, but that does not mean it is not worth the effort. If nothing else, we strongly believe that the likelihood of success should NEVER deter anyone from seeking legal advice. Learning what your rights are is only a benefit, never detrimental. Being armed with knowledge is empowering—even if you choose not to act on it, we always encourage people to reach out and learn what options you may or may not have and to garner a better understanding of your legal rights.
Read the full Q&A from The Landing here.
