Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:1

1 SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP

Aaron Siri (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed)
2
Email: [email protected]
3 Elizabeth A. Brehm (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed)
Email: [email protected]
4
200 Park Avenue
5 Seventeenth Floor
New York, NY 10166
6
Telephone: 212-532-1091
7 Facsimile: 646-417-5967
8
Caroline Tucker (SBN 261377)
9 Email: [email protected]
10 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
11 Telephone: 213-376-3739
12 Facsimile: 646-417-5967

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff

14 ROCKMOND DUNBAR

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 WESTERN DIVISION
18
ROCKMOND DUNBAR, Case No. 2:22-cv-1075
19
20 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
21 v.

22 THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY;

23 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
TELEVISION, A UNIT OF
24 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
25 CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS
AS 20TH TELEVISION,
26
27 Defendants.
28
1
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #:2

1 Rockmond Dunbar by and through counsel, and for his Complaint against
2 Defendants, hereby states as follows:
3 INTRODUCTION
4 1. Over the past 30 years, Rockmond Dunbar (“Mr. Dunbar”) has created a
5 well-respected career as a black working actor, writer, and producer. During that career,
6 he has frequently been one of only a handful of black leading men appearing on network
7 television. He is well respected by his peers and employers and had built a sterling
8 reputation in the entertainment industry by appearing in numerous successful television
9 shows such as “Soul Food,” “Prison Break,” “The Mentalist,” and “Sons of Anarchy.”
10 2. Since 2013, he and his family have been adherents to the teachings of the
11 Church of Universal Wisdom (“Universal Wisdom”), which preaches that God and
12 nature are one and that healing comes from God downward to His followers, which in
13 turn emanates from within His followers. Followers of Universal Wisdom, including Mr.
14 Dunbar, believe they are obligated to avoid medical intervention that introduces disease
15 into the body. Mr. Dunbar has frequently adhered to this obligation by forgoing various
16 medical interventions. Mr. Dunbar is now compelled to bring this action because
17 Defendants severely damaged his career by discriminating against him based on his race
18 and religion.
19 3. Mr. Dunbar has been the only black male lead actor on the hit television
20 show “9-1-1” since it debuted. Showing dedication to their work and employers, he and
21 his castmates continued working throughout the entire pandemic, taking reasonable
22 precautions to protect against COVID-19 infection. In fact, all of the current season of
23 the show was shot in either 2021 or 2022. In September 2021, Defendants introduced a
24 new policy mandating that all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, but allowed
25 actors like Mr. Dunbar to request an accommodation based on either medical or religious
26 reasons. Mr. Dunbar submitted paperwork seeking both a religious and a medical
27 accommodation which included personal statements regarding his faith and a clergy letter
28
2
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #:3

1 attesting to his membership in Universal Wisdom. The producer of “9-1-1” assured Mr.
2 Dunbar that he wanted him to remain with the show and that they could adjust his
3 schedule to accommodate Mr. Dunbar’s need to avoid obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine.
4 In fact, Mr. Dunbar understands that other members of the “9-1-1” cast and crew who
5 also could not be vaccinated have been accommodated, though none sought a religious
6 exemption and none were black.
7 4. Nevertheless, the administrators who work for Defendants never took Mr.
8 Dunbar’s requests for accommodations seriously. They openly mocked his beliefs and
9 proceeded to deny Mr. Dunbar his accommodations based on nothing more than rank
10 hearsay and assumptions. Defendants refused to believe Mr. Dunbar’s doctor’s
11 recommendation, and they refused to engage with Mr. Dunbar in any meaningful
12 interactive communication regarding his religious beliefs, which is particularly
13 unfortunate because, if they had, he could have explained that all of their assumptions
14 were incorrect. Because they refused to accommodate him, in October 2021, Defendants
15 barred him from the “9-1-1” set. However, the “9-1-1” producers ensured that his
16 character’s story showed him leaving temporarily, and made clear that he could return to
17 the show at any time.
18 5. Thereafter, Mr. Dunbar retained the undersigned counsel to assert his right
19 to proper accommodations. In retaliation, Defendants summarily terminated Mr.
20 Dunbar’s employment agreement, and refused to pay him the hundreds of thousands of
21 dollars that are still owed to him. Then, wanting to make an example out of Mr. Dunbar,
22 he believes that Defendants wrongfully leaked negative information to the media about
23 his departure from “9-1-1” including that he sought both religious and medical
24 exemptions that were denied. Defendants deliberately made it sound like Mr. Dunbar
25 was a recalcitrant anti-vaxxer, rather than present the truth – that like millions of other
26 Americans, he is a sincere adherent to a non-mainstream religious belief that prevents
27 him from being vaccinated.
28
3
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #:4

1 6. After articles appeared in the media touting Defendants’ story about Mr.
2 Dunbar, he essentially became persona non grata in his industry. Despite his decades of
3 successful work, and continuing interest in him to play various roles, agents and casting
4 directors have made clear that he is on a no-hire list due to his beliefs. In addition, before
5 Defendants’ efforts to retaliate against him, Mr. Dunbar and his wife had obtained
6 financing for a movie project that they had written and were set to produce. Yet,
7 numerous A and B list actors who were interested in working with him, refused to do so
8 after the articles came out for fear of being blacklisted by merely being associated with
9 Mr. Dunbar.
10 7. Defendants’ actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
11 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ) (“Title VII”), the California Fair Employment Housing Act (Cal.
12 Gov. Code § 12900, et seq. ) (“FEHA”), and common law principles of contract law.
13 Mr. Dunbar now brings this action to clear his name and recover for the damage that
14 Defendants’ discriminatory actions caused to him and his family.
15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2,
17 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal law.
18 9. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for
19 state law claims under California Government Code § 12940, because such claims stem
20 from part of the same case or controversy arising from a common nucleus of operative
21 fact.
22 10. Venue is proper in this district as Defendants operate corporate headquarters
23 in this district, and one or more of Defendants’ acts and those events complained of
24 occurred herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
25 11. The Plaintiff and Defendants consented to the exclusive jurisdiction and
26 venue in this Court in the Plaintiff’s employment contract pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
27 1404(a).
28
4
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 5 of 45 Page ID #:5

1 12. This Court is authorized to grant Mr. Dunbar declaratory relief pursuant to
2 28 U.S.C. § 2202.
3 13. This Court is authorized to grant Mr. Dunbar prayer for relief regarding
4 costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 42 U.S.C. §
5 2000e-5(k); and California Government Code § 12965(b).
6 PARTIES
7 14. Mr. Dunbar is a resident of the State of Georgia.
8 15. Defendant The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) is a corporation qualified
9 to do business in the state of California, with corporate offices at 500 S. Buena Vista
10 Street, Burbank, CA 91521.
11 16. Defendant Twentieth Century Fox Television, a unit of Twentieth Century
12 Fox Film Corporation doing business as 20th Television (“Fox”) is a corporation
13 qualified to do business in the state of California, with corporate offices at 10201 W. Pico
14 Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035. In 2019 Disney acquired Fox, making it a wholly
15 owned subsidiary of Disney. On information and belief, Fox and Disney share many
16 resources, including legal services and some resources involved in creating COVID-19
17 policy and/or providing exemptions to that policy.
18 17. Each of Defendants employs more than 15 employees.
19 18. Defendants are employers within the meaning of California and Federal
20 statutory provisions cited herein.
21 19. All of the above paragraphs are incorporated into the following factual
22 averments and claims as if fully set forth therein. Each of the following facts are
23 incorporated into all of the others as if fully set forth therein.
24 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
25 Mr. Dunbar’s Religious Beliefs
26 20. Mr. Dunbar has been an adherent to the teachings of the Church of Universal
27 Wisdom (“Universal Wisdom”) since 2013 following the birth of his first child. In that
28
5
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 6 of 45 Page ID #:6

1 time, Mr. Dunbar and his family have consistently followed the tenets of Universal
2 Wisdom in their daily lives and in raising their children.
3 21. Universal Wisdom was founded in 1974. It includes the belief that the
4 supreme attainment is the health and purity of body, mind, and spirit expressed through
5 the concept of universal wisdom, and that harmony with all living things is the expression
6 of God. It is based on the concept that God and nature are one and that healing comes
7 from above-downward, inward and out. This phrase explains that God provides healing
8 from above, downward to His followers and the healing through God’s grace begins from
9 inside.
10 22. Universal Wisdom deems it a sacrilege to depart from the precepts of the
11 religion by the following (among other things):
12 a. The ingestion of medication or other chemical substances that defy natural
13 law.
14 b. The injection into the body of medication or other matter of substances that
15 defy natural law.
16 c. The application of medication, chemicals, or other foreign matter or
17 substances unharmonious to the laws of nature.
18 d. The inhalation of medication, chemicals, or other foreign substances in
19 disharmony with the laws of nature.
20 23. With this in mind, the tenets of Universal Wisdom include, but are not
21 limited to, the moral obligation to avoid medical intervention that intentionally introduces
22 disease into the body, and to refuse to pierce the skin for medical treatment.
23 24. Mr. Dunbar and his wife have rejected medical intervention in the past due
24 to the tenants of their religion, and they continue to do so. Even though both Mr. Dunbar
25 and his wife work in the entertainment industry, primarily in Los Angeles, their family
26 relocated from California to Georgia in order to practice the tenets of their faith more
27
28
6
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #:7

1 freely, and have found Georgia to be a more positive environment for their children’s
2 homeschool education in alignment with their faith.
3 Mr. Dunbar’s Employment with Defendants
4 25. Mr. Dunbar has been employed as an actor, producer, director, and writer in
5 various capacities for nearly thirty years. His page on the website IMDb includes 61
6 credits as an actor and 20 credits as either a producer, director, or writer. 1 Those credits
7 included regular roles on such hit televisions shows as “Prison Break,” “The Game,”
8 “The Mentalist,” “Sons of Anarchy,” and “Soul Food.” The majority of his roles as an
9 actor were with Defendants.
10 26. Mr. Dunbar built his long career through hard work. He has been recognized
11 as an outstanding actor, winning a Black Real Award in 2002, and he was nominated for
12 that award again in 2013 and 2014. He was also nominated twice for an NAACP Image
13 Award.
14 27. Most recently, Mr. Dunbar has been a series regular on the Fox television
15 show “9-1-1.” He appeared on the show from the first episode of season 1 through
16 episode 9 of season 5. Specifically, Mr. Dunbar was employed on “9-1-1” from
17 September 29, 2017 through November 10, 2021. During this time, Mr. Dunbar was the
18 only black male lead on the series, and one of only a handful of black male leads on
19 primetime network television.
20 28. Throughout his time working for Defendants, they had no complaints
21 regarding his job performance.
22 29. Mr. Dunbar received significant praise for his work on “9-1-1”. For
23 example, Entertainment publication TV Fanatic published a story on October 5, 2021
24 regarding Mr. Dunbar’s performance in Season 5, Episode 3 of the show, stating: “And
25 major shout-out to Rockmond Dunbar, who was an absolute rockstar here.” Similarly,
26 TV Fanatic said of Mr. Dunbar’s performance in his penultimate episode in Season 5,
27 1
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0241870/.
28
7
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #:8

1 Episode 8: “Whenever Rockmond Dunbar does get a chance to shine, he always knocks
2 it out of the park.”
3 30. This praise also came from his superiors on the show. For instance, “9-1-1”
4 Showrunner Tim Minear spoke highly of Mr. Dunbar during an interview published
5 online in entertainment publication “Decider” on January 3, 2022. When asked about Mr.
6 Dunbar’s refusal to be vaccinated: “I’ve known Rock for many years – we worked
7 together on a show called Terriers, and then I cast him on this show because I knew how
8 genius he was.”
9 The COVID-19 Pandemic
10 31. By Spring of 2020, the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, had spread to many
11 nations, including the United States.
12 32. In that timeframe, Defendants began implementing certain mitigation
13 procedures for its workforce, such as wearing masks, maintaining minimum distances
14 from other workers, and receiving body temperature checks.
15 33. Since then, three separate COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and
16 authorized by the United States government for use.
17 34. On August 23, 2021, the FDA issued full approval of one of those vaccines,
18 the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine called Comirnaty, for persons 16 years of age and older.
19 Defendants’ Vaccine Mandate
20 35. For purposes of addressing issues concerning the ongoing COVID-19
21 pandemic, employees in the film and television industry are divided into Zones A, B, C
22 and so forth. Zone A includes actors, producers, and writers.
23 36. From about December 2020 through August 2021, the studio hosted several
24 zoom meetings with representatives from Disney Legal Department, Employee
25 Relations, and COVID-19 compliance coordinators to discuss the incentives offered for
26 voluntary COVID-19 vaccination and the possibility of mandatory COVID-19
27 vaccination. During one meeting, Mr. Dunbar asked what would happen if an employee
28
8
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:9

1 did not receive the COVID-19 vaccination in exchange for incentives offered, to which
2 a representative from Disney legal, Tanya Menton, replied, “there will be some form of
3 punishment,” or words to that effect.
4 37. Then, in September 2021, Fox formally announced a policy that required
5 “Zone A” employees to be fully vaccinated by October 18, 2021, defined as two weeks
6 following the second dose of a two-shot regimen of Pfizer or Moderna, or two weeks
7 after a single-dose regimen of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Defendants offered the
8 ability for employees to seek a religious and/or medical accommodation and directed
9 employees to contact the Employee Relations department to make such a request.
10 38. Prior to Defendants’ vaccine requirement for Zone A, all cast and crew were
11 required to be tested up to three times a week, wear masks, and social distance on set.
12 39. Mr. Dunbar worked through the entire pandemic while filming on set for the
13 “9-1-1” series. He consistently complied with all of Defendants’ testing, masking, and
14 social distancing requirements on set. Mr. Dunbar has never tested positive nor had
15 COVID while working, nor while at work.
16 40. Nevertheless, other actors on the “9-1-1” set became symptomatic and tested
17 positive for SARS-CoV-2 multiple times, which required Mr. Dunbar and other exposed
18 actors to quarantine.
19 Mr. Dunbar Requests Exemption From Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
20 41. Between 2009 and 2015, Mr. Dunbar appeared on the television series “The
21 Game” during its initial run. When the producers recently decided to re-start that show,
22 Defendant Disney granted Mr. Dunbar permission on September 17, 2021 to shoot new
23 episodes for “The Game” in Atlanta, Georgia from September 27, 2021 to October 1,
24 2021. As a result, Mr. Dunbar was away from the “9-1-1” set during that time and had
25 limited communication ability.
26 42. On September 29, 2021, while Mr. Dunbar was on “The Game” set in
27 Atlanta, an email was sent to Disney employees directing anyone seeking a medical or
28
9
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 10 of 45 Page ID #:10

1 religious accommodation for the COVID-19 vaccine mandate to contact Employee

2 Relations.
3 43. Based on his belief in Universal Wisdom, Mr. Dunbar has sincerely held
4 religious beliefs and convictions that directly conflict with his receiving the COVID-19
5 vaccines.
6 44. In addition, Mr. Dunbar has a disability, because of which his doctors have
7 advised that he not receive a vaccination.
8 45. Between about September 29 and 30, 2021, Mr. Dunbar’s agents, Sheree
9 Cohen and Ray Moheet, contacted Stephanie Herman at Fox via phone to notify her that
10 Mr. Dunbar would be requesting both a religious exemption and a medical exemption to
11 the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and that a full explanation of Mr. Dunbar’s faith in
12 support of his request for a religious exemption would be submitted on October 3 or 4,
13 2021, as soon as Mr. Dunbar was done shooting “The Game.”
14 46. On September 30, 2021, Erin Nguyen, from Disney Employee Relations,
15 acknowledged via email to Sheree Cohen that Mr. Dunbar would be requesting an
16 accommodation.
17 47. On October 4, 2021, Mr. Dunbar submitted the following to Defendants: (1)
18 a Statement of Religious Beliefs, including a Purpose Statement, Moral Obligation and
19 Sacrilege; (2) a personal letter explaining Mr. Dunbar’s religious beliefs; and (3) a clergy
20 letter from a Universal Wisdom minister.
21 48. Around that same time, Mr. Dunbar’s representatives submitted a letter from
22 his physician stating that Mr. Dunbar’s medical history is incompatible with all forms of
23 the COVID-19 vaccine.
24 Denial of Exemption Requests
25 49. On October 4, 2021, Ms. Nguyen notified Mr. Dunbar’s agents, Sheree
26 Cohen and Ray Moheet, via email that Mr. Dunbar’s physician letter was not sufficient
27 to support a medical exemption. Ms. Nguyen added: “Am I understanding that
28
10
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 11 of 45 Page ID #:11

1 Rockmond is now requesting an accommodation based on his religious beliefs as well?”

2 50. On October 4, 2021, Mr. Dunbar’s agent Ray Moheet stated via email to Ms.
3 Nguyen that, “we don’t agree with your assessment regarding Rockmond’s medical and
4 are hereby requesting an appeal.” Mr. Moheet also forwarded a letter from Mr. Dunbar
5 in response to Ms. Nguyen’s accusation that Mr. Dunbar was “pivoting” from a medical
6 to a religious exemption, stating: “My unwavering faith has and always will be the
7 cornerstone and foundation for which I seek any and all accommodation regarding my
8 employer’s vaccination mandate.” Mr. Dunbar also requested that further inquiries
9 regarding his faith be conducted in writing, or if verbal communication is preferred that
10 he be accompanied by a representative of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
11 Commission (“EEOC”) or an attorney.
12 51. The very next day, on October 5, 2021, Ms. Nguyen told Mr. Dunbar for the
13 first time that his last day working on the “9-1-1” set would be October 18, 2021 because,
14 according to her, Employee Relations supposedly did not have enough time to process
15 the request for an accommodation in the nearly two weeks between this email and the
16 October 18th deadline.
17 52. In response to Ms. Nguyen’s October 5th email, another one of Mr. Dunbar’s
18 agents, Norm Aladjem, sent an email to Ms. Nguyen regarding Mr. Dunbar’s religious
19 accommodation request, stating in part: “A sincerely held religious belief is exactly that,
20 whether anyone else shares that belief or not. I understand that it’s expedient for you to
21 pretend [Mr. Dunbar’s] religious beliefs are not sincere to make your job easier, and to
22 make life easier for vaccinated people on set, but I find your approach completely
23 retaliatory. [Mr. Dunbar] has and is willing to get on the phone with you to discuss
24 his beliefs, but is aware based on your approach that what you actually intend is to
25 pretend to listen to him and then pronounce his beliefs not to be sincere. I suspect you
26 too would be hesitant to talk to someone about your beliefs in that context. ” (Emphasis
27 added).
28
11
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #:12

1 53. After not hearing from Ms. Nguyen regarding his inquiries, Mr. Dunbar
2 reached out yet again on October 12, 2021 to engage in the interactive process in good
3 faith. Mr. Dunbar sent an email to Ms. Nguyen stating: “Erin: It’s come to my attention
4 that Disney believes that the documentation for medical and religious exceptions are
5 insufficient and you might have some questions for me. I want to make it clear that I am
6 available to have a discussion with you to answer any questions. If you have questions
7 for me, please e-mail them to me ASAP.”
8 54. Nevertheless, Ms. Nguyen never emailed Mr. Dunbar any questions
9 regarding his religious exemption. Instead, that same day, Mr. Dunbar received a
10 response email from Ms. Nguyen: “Hello Rockmond, and thank you for your email. This
11 is now in the hands of Disney Legal, who I understand has been in touch with your
12 representative. Thanks very much.”
13 55. Despite claiming Mr. Dunbar’s exemptions were being handled by the legal
14 department and thus out of her hands, the following day, October 13, 2021, Ms. Nguyen
15 sent Mr. Dunbar an email requesting additional information about his medical exemption
16 request while ignoring his religious exemption request. Ultimately, Defendants refused
17 Mr. Dunbar’s medical exemption request because they would not accept his doctor’s
18 signed letters, even after the physician made Disney’s requested changes to the letter.
19 56. After a Disney-affiliated physician interviewed Mr. Dunbar’s physician,
20 Defendants insisted Mr. Dunbar provide more information regarding his medical
21 condition, but given how he was being treated, he was concerned about either leaks to
22 the public or retaliation against him if he provided Defendants with more personal
23 information regarding his medical condition.
24 57. October 18, 2021 was Mr. Dunbar’s last day shooting on set for “9-1-1.”
25 58. Even though this was Mr. Dunbar’s last day on set, Defendants did not
26 terminate his employment at this time. To the contrary, during Mr. Dunbar’s last episode,
27 his character left Los Angeles, where the show is set, and went to Haiti on a humanitarian
28
12
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #:13

1 mission, but it was clear from a story standpoint that he could return to the show at any
2 time.
3 59. The producers of “9-1-1” told Mr. Dunbar they were very pleased with his
4 work. In this regard, the producer, showrunner, and creator of “9-1-1,” Mr. Minear,
5 specifically offered to make reasonable accommodations for Mr. Dunbar on set so he
6 could remain on the show during the pandemic despite his unvaccinated status.
7 60. In addition, Mr. Minear stated in his interview published on the Decider
8 website on January 3, 2022 that he “supported his [Mr. Dunbar’s] autonomy to make
9 decisions for himself. And I also explained that the company has a policy, and we work
10 for a company, and there’s only so much I can do. But what I did do was, I facilitated as
11 grateful an exit as I could for him. I didn’t kill him. I could have had his brain tumor
12 come back. But we decided we would give him an elegant exit so that if this madness
13 ever went away, it doesn’t completely foreclose the possibility of him coming back.”
14 61. Entertainment publication Daily Soap Dish reported on November 18, 2021
15 that the social media response to Mr. Dunbar’s “9-1-1” exit was “one of sympathy. Many
16 people felt that this decision was not justifiable, given that he did have an exemption.”
17 Disparagement of Mr. Dunbar’s Religious Beliefs
18 62. Defendants’ communications regarding Mr. Dunbar’s religious
19 accommodation request conveyed Defendants’ bias against Universal Wisdom. This bias
20 against Mr. Dunbar’s beliefs is clear evidence of the intent to discriminate, regardless of
21 Mr. Dunbar’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and the evidence he submitted to
22 Defendants to establish his sincerity.
23 63. As an example, on or about October 13, 2021, Ms. Menton, Assistant
24 General Counsel for Disney, remarked to Mr. Dunbar’s prior attorney, Young Park, that
25 his religion is “fake” and that Mr. Dunbar is merely an “anti-vaxxer,” or words to that
26 effect. Ms. Menton’s remarks were characteristic of the approach Defendants took to
27 Mr. Dunbar’s exemption requests.
28
13
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 14 of 45 Page ID #:14

1 64. Similarly, the process that Defendants went through to evaluate Mr.
2 Dunbar’s exemption requests appeared to Mr. Dunbar haphazard at best and thoroughly
3 opaque. It was not clear which Defendant was ultimately making what decisions. From
4 what Mr. Dunbar could see, it appeared that Ms. Nguyen and/or Ms. Menton served as
5 the judge of his exemption requests, even though they are Disney employees and Mr.
6 Dunbar’s contract was with Fox.
7 Defendants Terminate Mr. Dunbar’s Employment and Leak Negative
8 Information
9 65. On November 1, 2021, Mr. Dunbar’s counsel, Siri & Glimstad LLP (“Siri
10 & Glimstad”), sent a letter to Ms. Menton at Disney addressing Mr. Dunbar’s religious
11 and medical accommodation requests. The letter described how Defendants’ actions
12 were discriminatory on the basis of Mr. Dunbar’s religious beliefs and his race and how
13 they had a disparate impact on Mr. Dunbar.
14 66. Apparently in response to Siri & Glimstad’s letter, on November 10, 2021,
15 Mr. Dunbar received an email from an email address labeled “DGE Employee
16 Accommodation Requests,” and signed by the “Disney General Entertainment Employee
17 Relations Team.” In that email, Disney (apparently on behalf of Fox) rejected Mr.
18 Dunbar’s requests for a religious and/or medical exemption to their COVID-19
19 vaccination mandate. Specifically, with regard to the religious accommodation request,
20 Disney stated that its Employee Relations Team had “researched the source of the letter
21 you [i.e., Mr. Dunbar] provided and we cannot accept it as a basis for considering your
22 request for an exception without discussing further with you.”
23 67. However, Defendants clearly never had any intention of “discussing further”
24 Mr. Dunbar’s religious exemption because on that same day, November 10, 2021, Mr.
25 Dunbar received a letter from Fox terminating his entire employment contract.
26 68. Nothing in the termination letter suggested that Fox was in any way
27 displeased with his work. Instead, the only reason provided by Defendants for Mr.
28
14
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 15 of 45 Page ID #:15

1 Dunbar’s termination was his failure to comply with their COVID-19 policy by
2 compromising his religious beliefs and obtaining the COVID-19 vaccination. This
3 termination was not justified because Mr. Dunbar had requested a religious
4 accommodation that Defendants had wrongfully denied. The letter went on to claim that
5 Mr. Dunbar’s actions had supposedly breached the employment agreement and as a result
6 Defendants were “therefore released and discharged from all obligations to Lender [i.e.,
7 Mr. Dunbar’s loan out company, Epiphany Entertainment] and Artist [i.e., Mr. Dunbar],
8 including, without limitation, the obligation to pay Lender any further compensation
9 under the Agreement.” Fox then stated that it would “only pay Lender for Player’s
10 services up to and including episode 509 of the Series.”
11 69. Thus, by summarily denying Mr. Dunbar’s accommodation requests without
12 even engaging in reasonable discussions as they suggested in the November 10th email,
13 Defendants were denying Mr. Dunbar over $1.3 million in compensation owed to him
14 under the contract.
15 70. Even assuming Fox could terminate Mr. Dunbar’s contract for the reasons
16 given, which it could not, Defendants sent Mr. Dunbar this letter after episode 510
17 commenced filming, which entitles him to his “pay or play” compensation for that
18 episode. However, Disney refused to pay him this amount unless he agreed to forego this
19 suit.
20 71. Mr. Dunbar’s last episode of “9-1-1,” episode 509, aired on November 15,
21 2021.
22 72. The next day, on November 16, 2021, the website Deadline published an
23 article titled: “Rockmond Dunbar Exits ‘9-1-1’ Over Covid Vaccine Mandate After
24 Pursuing Medical & Religious Exemptions.”
25 73. Deadline gave Mr. Dunbar’s agents approximately 30 minutes to provide a
26 comment prior to publishing the article. Even though Mr. Dunbar provided a quote for
27 the article, that was only after finding out that it would contain leaked information
28
15
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 16 of 45 Page ID #:16

1 regarding his exemption requests. The leaked information only could have originated
2 from Defendants. On information and belief, Defendants leaked this information
3 intentionally to harm Mr. Dunbar’s future career in retaliation for Mr. Dunbar’s request
4 for a religious accommodation and subsequent challenge of Defendants regarding their
5 denial of his request. The Deadline article implied that Mr. Dunbar’s religious exemption
6 was insincere.
7 74. After Deadline published its story, similar stories about Mr. Dunbar were
8 published in numerous other publications, including Variety and Entertainment Weekly,
9 ensuring that his religious accommodation requests, and the negative light placed on them
10 by the leaks from Defendants, became well known in the entertainment industry.
11 75. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally leaked information to
12 Deadline the day after Mr. Dunbar’s last appearance on “9-1-1” as a proverbial “shot
13 across the bow” to discourage Mr. Dunbar from further pursuing his claims, and to signal
14 to the entertainment industry that Mr. Dunbar should not be hired. Publicly calling him
15 out also served to show other actors in the entertainment industry that they should not try
16 to stand up for their religious beliefs because they too could be fired.
17 Defendants Admit Their Wrongful Denial of Mr. Dunbar’s Religious
18 Accommodation Was Based on Blatantly Inaccurate Facts
19 76. On November 19, 2021, Paul Hastings, counsel for Fox sent a letter to Siri
20 & Glimstad arguing that Mr. Dunbar’s religious beliefs are insincere. The letter claimed
21 that Fox (though really Disney, acting on Fox’s behalf) based this conclusion on the fact
22 that Mr. Dunbar had previously received tattoos and ear piercings.
23 77. However, the reality is that Mr. Dunbar received the body decorations Paul
24 Hastings referred to many years before he became an adherent to Universal Wisdom. Mr.
25 Dunbar received his most recent tattoo approximately 20 years ago and had his ears
26 pierced approximately 30 years ago. Since becoming an adherent to Universal Wisdom,
27
28
16
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 17 of 45 Page ID #:17

1 Mr. Dunbar has not received any new tattoos or piercings.2

2 78. Paul Hastings’ November 19th letter also claimed that unnamed
3 representatives of Mr. Dunbar had supposedly told Defendants that Mr. Dunbar’s beliefs
4 were insincere and that his wife threatened to divorce him if Mr. Dunbar received the
5 COVID-19 vaccine. This supposed statement was patently false and malicious. Mr.
6 Dunbar never made such a statement, and all of his representatives have denied ever
7 making that statement. Mr. Dunbar believes that Disney fabricated that statement as a
8 means to discredit Mr. Dunbar’s beliefs and to defame him.
9 79. Paul Hastings’ letter further stated that Defendants had based their
10 determination on the fact that Mr. Dunbar had supposedly requested a medical exemption
11 prior to seeking a religious exemption. However, again, Defendants were wrong. Mr.
12 Dunbar’s representatives informed Defendants that he would seek both exemptions as
13 part of the same communication. The fact that his paperwork for the medical exemption
14 may have been submitted a few days before the paperwork for the religious exemption is
15 entirely immaterial. And, furthermore, the fact that a person seeks both exemptions has
16 no bearing on whether either exemption is legitimate and sincere because someone can
17 both have a medical counterindication to vaccination and a sincere religious belief against
18 the practice as well.
19 80. Lastly, Paul Hastings claimed that Mr. Dunbar “joined the Congregation of
20 Universal Wisdom after Twentieth Century announced its mandatory vaccination policy”
21 simply because the letter from the minister attesting to Mr. Dunbar’s membership was
22 dated in September 2021. Had Defendants engaged with Mr. Dunbar in an interactive
23 2
Paul Hastings letter relied on an article on the Essence website that they claim was
24 published in 2020, wherein Mr. Dunbar professed that he liked getting tattoos. However,
the actual article merely stated that it was “UPDATED OCTOBER 29, 2020.” As
25
explained in Siri & Glimstad’s November 29th letter, that article was originally published
26 in December 2009 based on an interview with Mr. Dunbar that year, a fact made plain by
27 the content of the article as well as by the original article still being available
(https://www.essence.com/news/rockmond-dunbar-changing-the-game/?amp=1).
28
17
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 18 of 45 Page ID #:18

1 process, rather than simply denying the request based on assumptions and then firing him,
2 Mr. Dunbar could have explained that he has been an adherent to Universal Wisdom since
3 2013.
4 81. Prior to Paul Hastings’ letter, neither Defendants nor Paul Hastings had ever
5 asked Mr. Dunbar about his tattoos, his piercings, his unnamed representative’s
6 statements, his wife’s supposed statements, his reasons for seeking both
7 accommodations, or the circumstances of his joining Universal Wisdom in the context of
8 his religious beliefs or his exemption requests. Thus, their assertion that these issues
9 invalidated the sincerity of his beliefs was based entirely on Defendants’ own ill-
10 informed assumptions.
11 82. On November 29, 2021, Siri & Glimstad sent a letter to Paul Hastings
12 explaining how their assumptions and false statements about Mr. Dunbar were entirely
13 incorrect. However, Defendants did not change their decision in response to learning the
14 true facts surrounding their supposed reasons for denying his accommodation request,
15 which is further evidence that those reasons were merely a pre-text for discriminating
16 against Mr. Dunbar based on his faith.
17 Defendants Refusal of Mr. Dunbar’s Continued Attempts to Explain His Religious
18 Beliefs
19 83. On December 7, 2021, representatives from Siri & Glimstad and Paul
20 Hastings met to discuss Mr. Dunbar’s termination. During that meeting, Paul Hastings
21 indicated that if Mr. Dunbar had additional information to provide regarding his religious
22 accommodation request, Defendants would consider it and use it to determine whether to
23 alter their denial of that request.
24 84. Mr. Dunbar wanted to allow Defendants every opportunity to correct their
25 mistake, and therefore, on December 10, 2021, Siri & Glimstad sent a letter to Paul
26 Hastings re-explaining the nature and sincerity of Mr. Dunbar’s sincere religious beliefs,
27 and offered to respond in writing to any further inquiries Defendants may have regarding
28
18
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 19 of 45 Page ID #:19

1 those beliefs.
2 85. Prior to the 2021 Christmas holiday, representatives from Paul Hastings
3 asked that Defendants be provided until after the New Year to respond regarding Mr.
4 Dunbar’s religious accommodation request.
5 86. Thereafter, on January 7, 2022, representatives from Paul Hastings emailed
6 Siri & Glimstad to state that Defendants required no additional information because they
7 would not reconsider the denial of Mr. Dunbar’s requests.
8 Defendants’ Refusal to Accommodate
9 87. In both its November 19th letter and in its January 7th email, Paul Hastings
10 stated that, even if Defendants had accepted his accommodation request “there would
11 have been no reasonable accommodations available that would have allowed him to
12 perform the essential functions of his role while adequately protecting the health and
13 safety of Mr. Dunbar and his colleagues.” Nevertheless, this claim that Defendants could
14 not accommodate Mr. Dunbar’s request are disingenuous for several reasons. First, they
15 made this statement only after they sought and accepted religious accommodation
16 requests from Zone A actors like Mr. Dunbar; if they were genuinely unable to
17 accommodate any actor’s religious accommodation requests then there would have been
18 no reason to even seek such requests.
19 88. Second, the producers of “9-1-1” had told Mr. Dunbar that they wanted to
20 keep him on the show and would be able to accommodate his needs. During filming of
21 his scenes for the first 9 episodes of season five of the show, all of which were filmed
22 during 2021, the producers implemented procedures intended to protect the cast and crew
23 (including Mr. Dunbar) from exposure to COVID-19. On information and belief, most
24 if not all of those same procedures have continued even after the vaccine mandate.
25 Despite these safety protocols, according to news reports, 3 the “9-1-1” show has
26
27
3
“Covid Surge Reportedly Forces ‘NCIS: LA’ And ‘9-1-1’ To Postpone Production,”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberleespeakman/2022/01/05/covid-surge-reportedly-
28
19
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 20 of 45 Page ID #:20

1 continued to experience production shutdowns due to breakthrough infections, even after

2 Defendants implemented their COVID-19 mandate. Therefore, there is no reason why
3 those procedures could not continue in order to accommodate Mr. Dunbar and other
4 members of the cast and crew.
5 89. Furthermore, as noted, the showrunner for “9-1-1” told Mr. Dunbar in no
6 uncertain terms that the show could accommodate Mr. Dunbar’s religious beliefs and
7 would have been able to safely continue production with Mr. Dunbar’s involvement in
8 the show.
9 90. In addition, as a result of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (not contracted
10 while working for Defendants), Mr. Dunbar’s body has generated immunity to this virus
11 (“natural immunity”). This immunity is more robust and durable than the immunity
12 from vaccination (“vaccine immunity”). In fact, the data and science to date leave no
13 doubt that Mr. Dunbar’s vaccinated peers are more likely to become infected with and
14 spread the virus than Mr. Dunbar.
15 91. Third, on information and belief, Defendants accommodated exemption
16 requests from other actors on the cast of “9-1-1,” none of whom are black and none of
17 whom sought a religious based accommodation. Mr. Dunbar understands that others
18 associated with the show were granted vaccine related accommodations, e.g., in the form
19 of paid time-off, for non-religious reasons while Mr. Dunbar was denied an
20 accommodation and terminated.
21 92. On information and belief, Disney has a history of racial discrimination, and
22 Mr. Dunbar was subjected to disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination on
23 the basis of his race. On information and belief, non-minority employees similarly
24 situated were not subject to termination when they refused the COVID-19 vaccine.
25
26
27
forces-ncis-la-and-9-1-1-to-postpone-production/?sh=65b8decb1f77.
28
20
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 21 of 45 Page ID #:21

1 Defendants’ Discriminatory and Retaliatory Actions Have Damaged Mr. Dunbar’s

2 Reputation and Caused him to Lose Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars
3 93. As noted, because Defendants wrongfully denied Mr. Dunbar’s
4 accommodation request, they have claimed that his refusal to compromise his sincerely
5 held religious beliefs was a breach of his employment agreement. Mr. Dunbar had a
6 “pay-or-play” agreement whereby even if he did not appear in an episode of “9-1-1,” he
7 would still be compensated. However, based on Defendants’ claim that he breached his
8 agreement, Defendants have refused to pay Mr. Dunbar the amounts guaranteed for the
9 remaining episodes of the fifth season of “9-1-1,” totaling approximately $723,800.
10 Defendants also refused to pay Mr. Dunbar a bonus he earned, worth $352,296, and may
11 refuse to pay between $200,000 and $300,000 in residual payments that are owed over
12 time.
13 94. Beyond their wrongful claims of breach, Defendants’ discriminatory and
14 retaliatory actions have severely damaged Mr. Dunbar’s professional reputation. For
15 example, as a result of Defendants’ representatives intentionally and maliciously leaking
16 information to media outlets, Mr. Dunbar has been essentially “blacklisted” and publicly
17 labeled a “non-complier” and “anti-vaxxer.”
18 95. Prior to Defendants’ actions, Mr. Dunbar had a number of television and
19 movie projects in active development. Since Defendants leaked information about Mr.
20 Dunbar’s accommodation requests, he has lost numerous opportunities on those projects
21 and has had multiple actors refuse to work with him for fear of also being “blacklisted”
22 by association with him.
23 96. To date, Mr. Dunbar’s agents and managers are fielding “availability
24 checks” regarding his services. These inquiries routinely include accolades for Mr.
25 Dunbar’s career accomplishments, but also include that Mr. Dunbar has been placed on
26 a “do not hire” list.
27 97. Defendants intentionally retaliated against Mr. Dunbar by making the
28
21
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 22 of 45 Page ID #:22

1 circumstances of his accommodation request public, and therefore, are responsible for
2 this damage to his reputation and future career.
3 Defendants’ Discriminatory and Retaliatory Actions Directly Lead to Damages on
4 a Project Mr. Dunbar Had Long Been Working on
5 98. Before Defendants improperly leaked information regarding Mr. Dunbar to
6 Deadline, Mr. Dunbar and his wife entered into a contract to secure funding prior to
7 receiving deal memos for a film project titled, “The Rearing,” (hereinafter “the Project”)
8 that they had been developing for years.
9 99. Specifically, Mr. Dunbar and his wife secured $1,000,000 in investment
10 funds on November 8, 2021 from a professional athlete/investor and an independent
11 production company for the Project. All supporting documentation was submitted to the
12 Screen Actors Guild (“SAG”) for union approval, which was obtained on December 7,
13 2021.
14 100. The Project provided Mr. Dunbar and his wife financial benefits as
15 compensation for writing, producing, and co-directing the Project.
16 101. Defendants knew that the Project was in progress and that Mr. Dunbar was
17 auditioning talent for the Project because it was listed on the industry “Breakdown
18 Services” official site for the tv series/films currently casting.
19 102. Casting for the Project began on December 8, 2021. Three lead roles were
20 advertised to A and B list talent for six-figure salaries.
21 103. Mr. Dunbar and his wife received positive feedback from agents after
22 reading the script for the Project and were engaged by multiple A and B list talent for the
23 three lead roles for the Project.
24 104. However, agents began to communicate to Mr. Dunbar’s casting director for
25 the Project their concerns. Specifically, actors who were interested in the Project were
26 unwilling to audition because of their fear of bad publicity about being associated with
27 Mr. Dunbar due to his being blacklisted over the vaccine controversy publicized by
28
22
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 23 of 45 Page ID #:23

1 Defendants.
2 105. One by one, A and B list talent backed away from the Project, because of
3 the negative media generated by Defendants.
4 106. Mr. Dunbar and his wife were forced to offer the Project’s lead roles to B,
5 C and D list actors. Although these actors are promising undiscovered talent, the
6 Project’s investors retracted $500,000 in funding from the budget as a result of the
7 casting.
8 107. Thus, Defendants’ wrongful conduct of leaking information to Deadline,
9 and thereby damaging Mr. Dunbar’s reputation, resulted in Mr. Dunbar losing talent and
10 funding for the Project.
11 108. Prior to the Deadline article, Mr. Dunbar had never before been the subject
12 of major negative publicity in the entertainment industry, and was well thought of in the
13 industry for the past 30 years.
14 109. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged
15 above, which was a substantial factor in the interference of Mr. Dunbar’s ability to enjoy
16 the benefits of his contract for the Project, Mr. Dunbar has suffered financial damages in
17 an amount subject to proof, but in any case, exceeding $1,000,000, the exact damage
18 amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial.
19 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
20 110. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles area
21 office, issued Mr. Dunbar a notice of right to sue on January 26, 2022 in Charge No. 480-
22 2022-02042 against the Walt Disney Company and Charge No. 480-2022-02043 against
23 Twentieth Television.
24
25
26
27
28
23
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 24 of 45 Page ID #:24

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
3 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq.
4 Religious Discrimination
5 111. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in the
6 preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
7 112. Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their
8 religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (“It shall be an unlawful
9 employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
10 individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
11 compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such
12 individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ....”).
13 113. Title VII defines the protected category of religion to include “all aspects of
14 religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Moreover, as
15 the EEOC has made clear, Title VII's protections also extend to nonreligious beliefs if
16 related to morality, ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. See EEOC, Questions
17 and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace (June 7, 2008),
18 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answersreligious-discrimination-
19 workplace (“Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or
20 need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.”); (Id. (“Religious beliefs
21 include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic
22 ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the
23 strength of traditional religious views.’ ”).)
24 114. By, inter alia, refusing to engage in the interactive process to permit Mr.
25 Dunbar to establish his sincere religious beliefs, by wrongfully denying him any religious
26 accommodation or exemption to Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate without any
27 reason for doing so, and then by terminating Mr. Dunbar without justification, Defendants
28
24
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 25 of 45 Page ID #:25

1 discriminated against Mr. Dunbar based on his sincerely held religious beliefs with
2 respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
3 115. Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Dunbar by
4 discharging him for the exercise of his religious beliefs.
5 116. Mr. Dunbar has a bona fide and sincerely held religious belief that precludes
6 him from obtaining any of the COVID-19 vaccines, as outlined above.
7 117. Mr. Dunbar’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with Defendants’
8 policies that require him to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine.
9 118. Mr. Dunbar raised his sincerely held religious beliefs with Defendants,
10 brought his objections and request for a religious accommodation and exemption to
11 Defendants’ attention, and requested a religious exemption and accommodation from the
12 COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
13 119. Defendants’ termination, denial of benefits, and other adverse employment
14 actions against Mr. Dunbar were motivated by, and are the result of, his exercise of his
15 sincerely held religious beliefs.
16 120. Defendants lacked any justification for the adverse employment actions
17 taken against Mr. Dunbar, and said actions were neither based on job-related rational nor
18 consistent with business necessity.
19 121. Defendants’ discrimination against Mr. Dunbar was intentional and was
20 performed with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Mr. Dunbar’s protected
21 civil rights.
22 122. Any justification offered by Defendants for their adverse employment
23 actions is either false or insufficient to support the nature of the adverse employment
24 actions taken.
25 123. Defendants, therefore, violated Title VII, and Mr. Dunbar is entitled to the
26 relief set out more fully below, including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay,
27 compensation for benefits, past and future medical and counseling expenses to the extent
28
25
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 26 of 45 Page ID #:26

1 any exist, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to 42
2 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
3 124. As a result of Defendants’ intentional violation of the Title VII rights of Mr.
4 Dunbar, he suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment
5 of life, thereby entitling him to compensatory damages.
6 125. The events described here justify an award of punitive damages under Title
7 VII.
8 126. Defendants’ refusal to consider or grant Mr. Dunbar’s request for
9 accommodation and exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate has caused, is
10 causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm and actual and undue hardship on
11 Mr. Dunbar’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
12 127. Mr. Dunbar has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing deprivation
13 of his most cherished constitutional liberties and sincerely held religious beliefs.
14 128. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
15 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
16 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
19 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq.
20 Disparate Impact on the Basis of Religion
21 129. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
22 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
23 130. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to “limit, segregate, or classify his
24 employees or applicants . . . in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
25 individual of employment opportunities . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion ...”
26 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
27 131. Furthermore, the statute provides that an unlawful employment practice
28
26
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 27 of 45 Page ID #:27

1 based on disparate impact is established when either an employee shows that an

2 employment policy causes such a disparate impact and the employer fails to show “that
3 the challenged practice is job related . . . and consistent with business necessity,” or the
4 employee shows there is an alternative way to serve the stated needs but the employer
5 refuses it. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A).
6 132. Even if facially neutral, Defendants’ vaccination policy, by not recognizing
7 and accommodating a sincere religious belief, had a disparate impact on Mr. Dunbar by
8 forcing him to abandon his religious obligation or forgo employment with Defendants.
9 133. Defendants’ refusal to recognize and accommodate a sincere religious belief
10 was neither required for Mr. Dunbar’s job nor consistent with business necessity.
11 Moreover, Defendants improperly refused Mr. Dunbar’s less-restrictive but feasible
12 options of continuing to be employed with appropriate COVID-19 mitigation precautions
13 in place, as they had been during his work for Defendants in 2021 and/or as they did for
14 other unvaccinated employees in similar positions to Mr. Dunbar.
15 134. As a direct and proximate result of this additional unlawful action by
16 Defendants under Title VII, Mr. Dunbar suffered lost income and other economic and
17 non-economic damages.
18 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
19 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
22 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq.
23 Race Discrimination
24 135. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
25 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
26 136. According to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) ("It shall be an unlawful
27 employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
28
27
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #:28

1 individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his

2 compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
3 individual's race.")
4 137. Defendants accommodated and/or did not terminate other actors on “9-1-1”
5 who were similarly situated to Mr. Dunbar, but none of whom are black.
6 138. On information and belief, Disney has a history of discrimination, and Mr.
7 Dunbar was subjected to disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination on the
8 basis of his race, national origin, and/or color. Non-minority employees similarly situated
9 were not subject to termination by avoiding the COVID-19 vaccine.
10 139. Defendants’ termination, denial of benefits, and other adverse employment
11 actions against Mr. Dunbar were motivated by, and are the result of, his race, national
12 origin and/or color.
13 140. Defendants lacked any justification for the adverse employment actions
14 taken against Mr. Dunbar, and said actions were neither based on job-related rational nor
15 consistent with business necessity.
16 141. Defendants’ discrimination against Mr. Dunbar was intentional and was
17 performed with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Mr. Dunbar’s protected
18 civil rights.
19 142. Any justification offered by Defendants for their adverse employment
20 actions is either false or insufficient to support the nature of the adverse employment
21 actions taken.
22 143. The above described acts of Defendants constitute discrimination on the
23 basis of his race, national origin and/or color in violation of public policy and Title VII.
24 144. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Mr.
25 Dunbar has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages, as set out more
26 fully below, including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, compensation for
27 benefits, past and future medical and counseling expenses to the extent any exist, interest,
28
28
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 29 of 45 Page ID #:29

1 and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
2 5(k).
3 145. As a result of Defendants’ intentional violation of the Title VII rights of Mr.
4 Dunbar, he suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment
5 of life, thereby entitling him to compensatory damages.
6 146. The events described here justify an award of punitive damages under Title
7 VII.
8 147. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
9 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
10 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
13 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq.
14 Retaliation
15 148. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
16 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
17 149. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) makes it unlawful for any person to retaliate against
18 an employee who has opposed a discriminatory practice. Specifically, under 42 U.S.C.
19 § 2000e-3: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate
20 against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency...
21 because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this
22 subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
23 manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”
24 150. As described above, Defendants took adverse employment action against
25 Mr. Dunbar because he engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the
26 discrimination he suffered based on his religious beliefs, race, national origin and/or
27 color, including wrongfully terminating his employment contract, depriving him of
28
29
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #:30

1 financial compensation pursuant to the contract and intentionally harming Mr. Dunbar’s
2 reputation in the industry, thereby intentionally interfering with Mr. Dunbar’s
3 prospective economic advantage.
4 151. Defendants’ actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.
5 152. Defendants lacked any justification for the adverse employment actions
6 taken against Mr. Dunbar, and said actions were neither based on job-related rational nor
7 consistent with business necessity.
8 153. Defendants’ discrimination against Mr. Dunbar was intentional and was
9 performed with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Mr. Dunbar’s protected
10 civil rights.
11 154. Any justification offered by Defendants for their adverse employment
12 actions is either false or insufficient to support the nature of the adverse employment
13 actions taken.
14 155. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Mr.
15 Dunbar has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages, as set out more
16 fully below, including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, compensation for
17 benefits, past and future medical and counseling expenses to the extent any exist, interest,
18 and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
19 156. As a result of Defendants’ intentional violation of the Title VII rights of Mr.
20 Dunbar, he suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment
21 of life, thereby entitling him to compensatory damages.
22 157. The events described here justify an award of punitive damages under Title
23 VII.
24 158. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
25 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
26 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
27
28
30
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 31 of 45 Page ID #:31

1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Violation of Mr. Dunbar’s Civil Rights
3 42 U.S.C. § 1985
4 159. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
5 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
6 160. Section 1985 provides a cause of action against public and private
7 defendants who unlawfully conspire to deprive an individual of his constitutionally
8 protected liberties. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (“If two or more persons in any State or Territor
9 conspire … for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class
10 of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under
11 the laws“).
12 161. The elements of the claim of conspiracy to violate civil rights under 1985
13 include (1) a conspiracy, (2) a conspiratorial purpose to deprive Mr. Dunbar of the equal
14 protection of the laws or of a constitutionally protected liberty, (3) an overt act in
15 furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.
16 See Fazaga v. FBI, 916 F.3d 1202, 1245 (9th Cir. 2019)
17 162. Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate, combined with Defendants’
18 agreements to enforce its provisions in a discriminatory manner and deny Mr. Dunbar’s
19 request for a religious exemption, constitutes a conspiracy to violate Mr. Dunbar’s civil
20 and constitutional rights based on his religious beliefs, race, national origin and/or color.
21 163. Ms. Menton, Ms. Nguyen, and other representatives of Defendants have all
22 reached an agreement with Defendants to deprive Mr. Dunbar of any exemption or
23 accommodation for the exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
24 164. Defendants’ agreement to deprive Mr. Dunbar of his constitutionally
25 protected liberties is evidenced in its refusal to engage in the interactive process with Mr.
26 Dunbar and denial of his request for a religious exemption and accommodation,
27 especially given the false and inaccurate basis for reaching that conclusion.
28
31
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 32 of 45 Page ID #:32

1 165. Ms. Menton and Ms. Nguyen made statements disparaging Mr. Dunbar’s
2 sincerely held religious beliefs.
3 166. By agreeing to refuse to even consider Mr. Dunbar’s requests for religious
4 exemption and accommodation, Defendants have reached an express or tacit agreement
5 to deprive Mr. Dunbar of his constitutionally protected rights to equal protection and
6 religious exercise.
7 167. Defendants’ have engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to
8 deprive Mr. Dunbar of his civil rights by failing to engage in the interactive process and
9 terminating Mr. Dunbar’s employment.
10 168. Defendants have each engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the
11 conspiracy to deprive Mr. Dunbar of his civil rights by refusing to consider, evaluate, or
12 accept Mr. Dunbar's request for a religious exemption and accommodation from the
13 COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
14 169. By denying Mr. Dunbar his requested religious exemption and
15 accommodation and terminating his employment because of the exercise of his sincerely
16 held religious beliefs, Defendants' conspiracy has resulted in a deprivation of Mr.
17 Dunbar’s constitutionally protected rights based on his religious beliefs, race, national
18 origin, and/or color.
19 170. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants and their employees Mr.
20 Dunbar has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages, as set out more
21 fully below
22 171. By the aforesaid acts and conduct of Defendants and their employees
23 Defendants have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm and
24 actual and undue hardship based on his religious beliefs, race, national origin, and/or
25 color.
26 172. Mr. Dunbar has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing deprivation
27 of their most cherished constitutional liberties and sincerely held religious beliefs.
28
32
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 33 of 45 Page ID #:33

1 173. This Court is authorized to grant Mr. Dunbar prayer for relief regarding
2 costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
3 174. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
4 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
5 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
6 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Violation of the California Fair Employment Housing Act
8 Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.
9 Religious Discrimination
10 175. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
11 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
12 176. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code § 12900 et seq.,
13 the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), was in full force and effect and was
14 binding on Defendants, as Defendants regularly employed five (5) or more persons.
15 177. Under the FEHA, Government Code section 12900 et. seq., it is an unlawful
16 employment practice for an employer because of a person’s religion, religious creed,
17 religious beliefs, religious practices, or religious observances, to refuse to hire or employ
18 the person, to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment,
19 to bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to
20 employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms,
21 conditions, or privileges of employment. It is unlawful under FEHA for any person to
22 aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under FEHA,
23 or to attempt to do so.
24 178. It is unlawful, under the California Government Code section 12900 et seq.,
25 for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination
26 and harassment based on an employee’s religion, or that religion’s creed, beliefs,
27 practices or observances.
28
33
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 34 of 45 Page ID #:34

1 179. By, inter alia, refusing to engage in the interactive process to permit Mr.
2 Dunbar to establish his sincere religious beliefs, by wrongfully denying him any religious
3 accommodation or exemption to Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate without any
4 reason for doing so, and then by terminating Mr. Dunbar without justification, Defendants
5 discriminated against Mr. Dunbar based on his sincerely held religious beliefs with
6 respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
7 180. Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Dunbar by
8 discharging him for the exercise of his religious beliefs.
9 181. Mr. Dunbar has a bona fide and sincerely held religious belief that precludes
10 him from obtaining any of the COVID-19 vaccines, as outlined above.
11 182. Mr. Dunbar’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with Defendants’
12 policies that require him to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine.
13 183. Mr. Dunbar raised his sincerely held religious beliefs with Defendants,
14 brought his objections and request for a religious accommodation and exemption to
15 Defendants' attention, and requested a religious exemption and accommodation from the
16 COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
17 184. Defendants’ termination, denial of benefits, and other adverse employment
18 actions against Mr. Dunbar were motivated by, and are the result of, his exercise of his
19 sincerely held religious beliefs.
20 185. Defendants lacked any justification for the adverse employment actions
21 taken against Mr. Dunbar, and said actions were neither based on job-related rational nor
22 consistent with business necessity.
23 186. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
24 suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without
25 limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related
26 opportunities in his field and damage to his professional reputation, all in an amount
27 subject to proof at the time of trial. Mr. Dunbar claims such amounts as damages pursuant
28
34
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 35 of 45 Page ID #:35

1 to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for
2 prejudgment interest.
3 187. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
4 suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and
5 embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms as a result of the stress.
6 Mr. Dunbar is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that he will continue to
7 experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently
8 ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
9 188. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
10 been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute his claims herein, and has incurred and is
11 expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Mr.
12 Dunbar is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs under California Government Code
13 § 12965(b).
14 189. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
15 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
16 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Violation of the California Fair Employment Housing Act
19 Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.
20 Race Discrimination
21 190. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
22 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
23 191. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code § 12900 et seq.,
24 FEHA, was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants, as Defendants
25 regularly employed five (5) or more persons.
26 192. California Government Code § 12940(a) requires Defendant to refrain from
27 discriminating against any employee on the basis of race.
28
35
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 36 of 45 Page ID #:36

1 193. The above said acts of Defendants constituted racial discrimination in

2 violation of public policy and in violation of California Government Code § 12940 et seq.
3 194. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
4 suffered actual, consequential, and incidental financial losses, including without
5 limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related
6 opportunities in his field and damage to his professional reputation, all in an amount
7 subject to proof at the time of trial. Mr. Dunbar claims such amounts as damages pursuant
8 to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for
9 prejudgment interest.
10 195. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
11 suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and
12 embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms as a result of the stress.
13 Mr. Dunbar is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that he will continue to
14 experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently
15 ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
16 196. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
17 been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute his claims herein, and has incurred and is
18 expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Mr.
19 Dunbar is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Government Code
20 § 12965(b).
21 197. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
22 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
23 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
24
25
26
27
28
36
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 37 of 45 Page ID #:37

1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Violation of the California Fair Employment Housing Act
3 Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.
4 Retaliation
5 198. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
6 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
7 199. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code § 12900 et seq.,
8 FEHA, was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants, as Defendants
9 regularly employed five (5) or more persons.
10 200. Code § 12940(h) makes it unlawful for any person to retaliate against an
11 employee who has opposed a discriminatory practice.
12 201. Defendants took adverse employment action against Mr. Dunbar because he
13 engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the religious and race
14 discrimination he suffered, including wrongfully terminating his employment contract,
15 depriving him of financial compensation pursuant to the contract, and intentionally
16 harming Mr. Dunbar’s reputation in the industry, thereby intentionally interfering with
17 Mr. Dunbar’s prospective economic advantage.
18 202. Defendants’ actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Code §
19 12940(h).
20 203. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Dunbar has suffered, and will
21 continue to suffer, both economic and non-economic loss, including, but not limited to:
22 loss of wages, benefits, pension, bonus entitlements, residual payments, deferred
23 compensation, future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, and other compensatory
24 damages.
25 204. As outlined above, Defendants purposefully and intentionally retaliated
26 against Mr. Dunbar based upon his opposition to Defendants’ vaccine mandate and denial
27 of his religious exemption request by taking adverse employment action against him. Mr.
28
37
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 38 of 45 Page ID #:38

1 Dunbar is entitled to recover damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain,
2 suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-
3 pecuniary losses caused by Defendants’ unlawful retaliation.
4 205. Defendants’ actions described above were done with malice or a reckless
5 indifference to Mr. Dunbar’s protected right to be free from retaliation for opposing
6 unlawful employment practices. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation
7 against Mr. Dunbar, he is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient
8 to deter Defendants from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
9 206. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
10 suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and
11 embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms as a result of the stress.
12 Mr. Dunbar is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that he will continue to
13 experience said physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently
14 ascertainable, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
15 207. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Mr. Dunbar has
16 been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute his claims herein, and has incurred and is
17 expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Mr.
18 Dunbar is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs under California Government Code
19 § 12965(b).
20 208. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
21 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
22 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
23 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Breach of Written Contract
25 209. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
26 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
27 210. Section II of Mr. Dunbar’s Actor Agreement, dated September 20, 2017
28
38
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 39 of 45 Page ID #:39

1 with Defendants provides in relevant part that:

2 Player shall be paid the Episodic Compensation set forth herein below.
3 In ... each subsequent Contract Year, Player is guaranteed, pay or play, the
4 following Ratio of original episodes produced but no less than the
5 Minimum Number.
6
7 ***
8
9 the Episodic Compensation for the Third & subsequent Contract Years
10 shall be as set forth.
11
12 ***
13
14 Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, licensee cancellations …
15 shall not relieve Fox of the obligation to pay episodic compensation for the
16 Minimum Number of episodes indicated for any Contract Year for which
17 Fox exercises its option.
18
19 211. The 2017 Memorandum of Agreement dated September 29, 2017 provides
20 that:
21 Advance payment for residuals: Other. For all other residual
22 purposes… the salary at which advance payment is permitted
23 shall be $9,000 per week or per episode.
24
25 212. The compensation letter dated July 29, 2021 provides that:
26 In the event that Twentieth… to produce a sixth season of the
27 Series and provided that neither Lender nor Player is in material
28
39
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 40 of 45 Page ID #:40

1 breach or default of the terms or conditions of the Agreement,

2 Lender shall be entitled to a one-time bonus calculated to
3 “gross up” Player’s Fifth Season Fee to an amount equal to
4 $100,000 for each episode for which Player was entitled to be
5 paid.
6
7 ***
8
9 The S.6 Pick Up Bonus shall be paid promptly upon
10 Twentieth's acceptance of the order but no later than
11 commencement of production of a sixth season of the Series.
12
13 213. As alleged herein, Mr. Dunbar requested a religious exemption from
14 Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate so that he could continue to perform pursuant
15 to the terms of his employment contract and intended to and was capable of finishing his
16 commitment for season 5 and then continue on to season 6 of “9-1-1.”
17 214. Defendants refused to engage in the interactive process with Mr. Dunbar and
18 denied his request for a religious exemption, thereby preventing Mr. Dunbar from
19 continuing to perform pursuant to the terms of the employment contract.
20 215. Defendants’ action to deny Mr. Dunbar a religious exemption and his
21 subsequent termination constitutes a breach of the employment agreements on the part of
22 Defendants.
23 216. This breach of contract has caused, and is continuing to cause, Mr. Dunbar
24 to incur damage, loss, and harm, in an amount to be determined according to proof at the
25 time of trial.
26 217. Defendants’ wrongful conduct for the breach of obligation arising from
27 contract, entitles Mr. Dunbar to an award of damages pursuant to California Civil Code
28
40
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 41 of 45 Page ID #:41

1 § 3300.
2 218. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
3 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
4 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
5 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
7 219. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
8 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
9 220. By agreeing to refuse to even consider Mr. Dunbar’s requests for religious
10 exemption and accommodation, Defendants have reached an express or tacit agreement
11 to deprive Mr. Dunbar of his constitutionally protected rights to equal protection and
12 religious exercise.
13 221. Defendants’ have engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to
14 deprive Mr. Dunbar of his civil rights by failing to engage in the interactive process and
15 terminating Mr. Dunbar’s employment.
16 222. Defendants’ conduct alleged herein constituted a breach of the implied
17 covenant of good faith and fair dealing as applied to Mr. Dunbar, as it frustrated Mr.
18 Dunbar’s ability to obtain the benefits expressly granted by his employment contract with
19 Defendant Fox.
20 223. The foregoing breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing has
21 caused, and is continuing to cause, Mr. Dunbar to incur damage, loss, and harm, in an
22 amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial.
23 224. But for Defendants’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
24 dealing which frustrated Mr. Dunbar’s ability to perform the terms of his employment
25 contract, Mr. Dunbar would continue to adhere to the terms of his employment contract
26 with Defendants.
27 225. Defendants’ wrongful conduct for the breach of obligation arising from
28
41
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 42 of 45 Page ID #:42

1 contract, entitles Mr. Dunbar to an award of damages pursuant to California Civil Code
2 § 3300.
3 226. Mr. Dunbar is entitled to other such relief as this court deems appropriate.
4 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
5 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
6 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
8 227. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
9 paragraphs 1-110 above as if fully set forth herein.
10 228. Mr. Dunbar and his wife obtained union approval and funding for the Project
11 and Defendants knew the Project was in progress. Despite positive feedback from agents,
12 A and B list talent passed on the Project due to negative publicity regarding Mr. Dunbar
13 and funding was retracted.
14 229. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged
15 above, which was a substantial factor in the interference of Mr. Dunbar’s ability to enjoy
16 the benefits of his contract for the Project, Mr. Dunbar has suffered financial damages in
17 an amount subject to proof, but in any case, exceeding $1,000,000, the exact damage
18 amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial.
19 230. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was intended to cause injury to Mr. Dunbar
20 and was carried out with malice, oppression, and/or fraud, with willful or callous
21 disregard for the rights of Mr. Dunbar, thereby entitling Mr. Dunbar to an award of
22 punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294.
23 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
24 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
25 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Negligent Interference with Potential Economic Advantage
27 231. Mr. Dunbar hereby realleges and adopts each and every allegation in
28
42
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 43 of 45 Page ID #:43

1 paragraphs 1-110, and paragraphs 228-229, above as if fully set forth herein.
2 232. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was intended to cause injury to Mr. Dunbar
3 and was carried out with malice, oppression, and/or fraud, with willful or callous
4 disregard for the rights of Mr. Dunbar, thereby entitling Mr. Dunbar to an award of
5 punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294.
6 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully prays for relief against Defendants as
7 hereinafter set forth in his prayer for relief.
8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND
9 WHEREFORE, Mr. Dunbar respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
10 favor of Mr. Dunbar and against Defendants and:
11 a. Order Defendants to make Mr. Dunbar whole by providing appropriate
12 backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and
13 front pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief
14 necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants’ unlawful employment
15 practices.
16 b. Order Defendants to make Mr. Dunbar whole by providing compensation
17 for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment
18 practices described above, including but not limited to, expenses of entering
19 into a replacement contract for the Project in an amount to be determined at
20 trial.
21 c. Order Defendants to make Mr. Dunbar whole by providing compensation
22 for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment
23 practices described above, including but not limited to, emotional pain,
24 suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and loss of
25 civil rights, in an amount to be determined at trial.
26 d. Order Defendants to pay Mr. Dunbar punitive damages for the malicious
27 and reckless conduct described above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
28
43
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 44 of 45 Page ID #:44

1 e. Order Defendants to designate Mr. Dunbar as eligible for rehire by

2 Defendants.
3 f. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents,
4 servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all persons in active
5 concert or participation with them, from discriminating against applicants
6 and current or future employees based on their religious beliefs and/or their
7 refusal to violate their religious beliefs, including but not limited to in their
8 current and future employee vaccination policies.
9 g. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents,
10 servants, employees, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert
11 or participation with them, from discriminating against applicants and
12 current or future employees based on race, national origin and/or color,
13 including but not limited to in their current and future employee vaccination
14 policies and adverse employment actions.
15 h. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents,
16 servants, employees, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert
17 or participation with them from retaliating against applicants and current or
18 future employees based on their opposition to any conduct made unlawful
19 by Title VII and/or Code § 12940(h), including but not limited to,
20 intentionally and/or recklessly leaking confidential information of
21 applicants and current or future employees to the press, and as part of their
22 current and future employee vaccination policies.
23 i. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
24 which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, including
25 but not limited to effective policies prohibiting religious discrimination and
26 allowing for appropriate religious accommodation as part of their current
27 and future employee vaccination policies, all of which eradicate the effects
28
44
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 2:22-cv-01075 Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 Page 45 of 45 Page ID #:45

1 of Defendants’ past and present unlawful employment practices.

2 j. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
3 which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, including
4 but not limited to effective policies prohibiting race discrimination and
5 allowing for appropriate accommodation as part of their current and future
6 employee vaccination policies, all of which eradicate the effects of
7 Defendants’ past and present unlawful employment practices.
8 k. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
9 which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, including
10 effective policies prohibiting retaliation, including but not limited to as part
11 of their current and future employee vaccination policies, all of which
12 eradicate the effects of Defendants’ past and present unlawful practices.
13 l. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the
14 public interest.
15 m. Award attorneys’ fees and costs of this action.
16 n. Any such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
17 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all triable claims.
18
Dated: February 16, 2022
19
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
20
21 By: /s/ Caroline Tucker
22 Aaron Siri (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
Elizabeth Brehm (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
23 Caroline Tucker
24
Attorneys for Plaintiff
25 ROCKMOND DUNBAR
26
27
28
45
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT