In Emilio Garcia v. ROC Nation LLC et al, 1:24-cv-7587-GHW, 2025 WL 1865965 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2025), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff – a cameraman working in rapper Megan Thee Stallion’s (a/k/a Megan Pete) entourage – sufficiently alleged sexual orientation-based discrimination/hostile work environment.
The court summarized the facts, in pertinent part, as follows:
“[A]s part of Pete’s entourage, [Plaintiff] was required to attend strip clubs, night clubs, and other excursions.” Id. ¶ 30. Pete “compelled Plaintiff to go on dozens of trips to strip clubs in New York, California, Atlanta, Georgia, and overseas.” Id. ¶ 35. “Plaintiff attended strictly out of his duties to his employer, not for his own pleasure or benefit.” Id.
On one occasion on or around February 15, 2022, Plaintiff and the entourage “were required to accompany Pete to a New York City strip club.” Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff went to the strip club only “because [Pete] required him to.” Id. ¶ 34. At one point in the evening, “Pete began physically touching the dancer in a sexually provocative manner which made Plaintiff feel extremely uncomfortable, embarrassed, and disgusted.” Id. ¶ 37. Plaintiff “tried to avoid” the situation “but was unable to leave.” Id. Later in the evening, Plaintiff made a joke about being related to one of the dancers who shared his last name, and Pete “shot Plaintiff a sinister look.” Id. ¶¶ 39–42. Eventually, “Plaintiff removed himself from the situation and proceeded to leave the strip club and wait in one of the SUVs in the convoy waiting for Pete and the entourage.” Id. ¶ 44.
“In or about June 2022, Plaintiff traveled with Pete to Ibiza, Spain.” Id. ¶ 47. One night during this trip, “Plaintiff was required to join Pete and the entourage to a nightclub in Ibiza.” Id. ¶ 48. After leaving the nightclub, Plaintiff and Pete, along with three of Pete’s female “best friends,” got into an SUV. Id. ¶ 50. “Plaintiff was only present in the SUV [to] perform his duties as Pete’s employee.” Id. ¶ 64. The SUV “had two bench seats that allowed the passengers to face each other.” Id. ¶ 51. Pete, who was allegedly intoxicated, proceeded to engage in sexual conduct with her friends in the SUV. Id. ¶¶ 56–59, 62–63. “Plaintiff was unable to remove himself from the situation.” Id. ¶ 57. The sexual conduct “taking place in front of Plaintiff made him feel extremely uncomfortable.” Id. ¶ 64.
Later that same evening, Plaintiff, Pete, her friends, and other members of the entourage were having dinner at the residence where they were staying. Id. ¶¶ 67, 71–72. “Suddenly, Plaintiff felt Pete was giving him a dirty look once again.” Id. ¶ 74. “Pete shouted at Plaintiff, so everyone could [hear], ‘Are you really eating that you fucking fat bitch? Spit that shit out!’ ” Id. ¶ 75. “Pete continued, ‘why are you still chewing? Spit that shit out!’ ” Id. ¶ 77. Pete then “grabbed the food off [another employee’s] plate—who was sitting closer to Pete than Plaintiff was—and threw the food over her shoulder.” Id. “[H]umiliated and ashamed,” Plaintiff “excused himself and proceeded to go to sleep for the night.” Id. ¶ 78. Plaintiff had informed Pete that he has an eating disorder and “struggles with weight.” Id. ¶ 28.
The next morning, Plaintiff “made it clear he did not appreciate and opposed” Pete’s “unlawful conduct” in the SUV. Id. ¶ 80. Pete responded, “don’t you ever speak about what happened in the car.”
Applying the law to the facts, the court explained that plaintiff “plausibly pleads that the alleged sexual encounter in the SUV in Ibiza created a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation.” Specifically, it held that the inference – that “Pete would not have engaged in group sex with other women in front of a heterosexual male” and that “Pete felt comfortable engaging in group sex with other women in front of Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s sexuality and gender” – was not an unreasonable one to draw from the alleged facts.
Therefore, held the court, plaintiff has plausibly pleaded that he experienced the alleged inferior conditions of his employment on account of his sexual orientation.