Disney sued by woman after "spanking" incident

[racefanof88]

Disney sued by woman after "spanking" incident
by Leah Zanolla
Jan 23, 2012

Disney is being sued by a woman who says she was smacked on the butt, as well as kissed during a taping of the Disney Channel show "Good Luck Charlie." Kellie Rodriguez attended a taping of the popular show with her children and several other family members in December 2011, and was brought up to the stage by the warm-up comedian Ron Pearson. Rodriguez and two other guests in the audience were asked to do a "silly dance" to the tune of YMCA. According to Rodriguez, Pearson began to spank her while she did her "silly dance" and continued until she turned around to stop him. He then asked her to kiss his cheek, but turned his head so the kiss landed on his lips instead. Rodriguez also added that she noticed him looking at her body before the show began. She is suing for damages for "sexual assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention of unfit employees, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."



WOW, don't know what to make of this story. I find it disturbing if it happened, but I find it equally disturbing if the woman actually stood by and let this happen to her. Why would she go up on stage if she felt uncomfortable about Pearson "looking at her body" before the show began? Why would she let him "relentlessly" spank her in front of her children? And why would she even consider giving him a kiss of any kind after an alleged "sexually assault"? I just find it hard to believe anyone would continue with any part of a show after being as traumatized as she is alleging to be?

 

[Virtucomp]

I can agree that some of the things in the story seem like inapproprate actions for Disney.

I think she has regrets for taking part in the show and making a fool of herself.

I think once you get on stage the argument that you felt uncomfortable because he was checking you out goes out the window.

 

[nytimez]

Just a guess, but I suspect that perhaps she thought the fact the he was checking her out helped her get some attention and a chance to be brought on stage -- but I would also suspect that she didn't think it would devolve into butt-spanking and kissing.

This being on a TV set, the incident may have been recorded -- and if that's the case, it should be pretty straightforward (and, if that's the case, you may see a quick settlement and the comic fired).

I think to a certain extent you expect a little mild and light-heart humiliation when you agree to be a comic's foil on stage... but I don't think you can extend that expectation to the warm-up act for a family-geared show such as "Good Luck Charlie."

All the charges -- "sexual assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention of unfit employees, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- are just lawyer-speak to make the case... regardless of whether or not all those charges apply or are exaggerations, it sounds to me like this woman was probably mistreated given the situation and context.

 

[racefanof88]

I can agree that some of the things in the story seem like inappropriate actions for Disney.

I think she has regrets for taking part in the show and making a fool of herself.

I think once you get on stage the argument that you felt uncomfortable because he was checking you out goes out the window.

I agree that she may regret getting on stage, but anyone who has ever been to a live comedy show knows that part of the act is to pick on the audience. Once, at a Comedy Club, I got up to go to the powder room, and the comedian teased me relentlessly, but it was all part of it. I was sure that it was something that he did at every show so I just laughed along with everyone else.

Most people, who feel threatened in some way, will do the exact opposite of what she did. It is human instinct to flee from danger either real or imagined. If this were me, the story would read "Woman punches Disney comedian after inappropriate 'spanking'."

Just a guess, but I suspect that perhaps she thought the fact the he was checking her out helped her get some attention and a chance to be brought on stage -- but I would also suspect that she didn't think it would devolve into butt-spanking and kissing.

This being on a TV set, the incident may have been recorded -- and if that's the case, it should be pretty straightforward (and, if that's the case, you may see a quick settlement and the comic fired).

I think to a certain extent you expect a little mild and light-heart humiliation when you agree to be a comic's foil on stage... but I don't think you can extend that expectation to the warm-up act for a family-geared show such as "Good Luck Charlie."

All the charges -- "sexual assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention of unfit employees, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- are just lawyer-speak to make the case... regardless of whether or not all those charges apply or are exaggerations, it sounds to me like this woman was probably mistreated given the situation and context.

You are most likely right about the "checking" her out thing, but she still, after being made uncomfortable by it, got on stage with the man. If I were on any jury that right there would be enough for me to not award her one dime. Not to mention she went on and was going to kiss his cheek AFTER he spanked her. I just don't buy the whole sexual assault issue. There are women who have serious, and legitimate, sexual assault cases and this just doesn't fall into that category. She was not at any time held against her will and assaulted, she had the choice to walk off the stage or to decline his invitation to go on stage.

Don't get me wrong, if these allegations prove to be true then the employee should be fired, or at least suspended. I am very sceptically of these type lawsuits, as some people are just looking for a quick buck in our litigious society.

 

[nytimez]

I agree that she may regret getting on stage, but anyone who has ever been to a live comedy show knows that part of the act is to pick on the audience. Once, at a Comedy Club, I got up to go to the powder room, and the comedian teased me relentlessly, but it was all part of it. I was sure that it was something that he did at every show so I just laughed along with everyone else.

Most people, who feel threatened in some way, will do the exact opposite of what she did. It is human instinct to flee from danger either real or imagined. If this were me, the story would read "Woman punches Disney comedian after inappropriate 'spanking'."

You are most likely right about the "checking" her out thing, but she still, after being made uncomfortable by it, got on stage with the man. If I were on any jury that right there would be enough for me to not award her one dime. Not to mention she went on and was going to kiss his cheek AFTER he spanked her. I just don't buy the whole sexual assault issue. There are women who have serious, and legitimate, sexual assault cases and this just doesn't fall into that category. She was not at any time held against her will and assaulted, she had the choice to walk off the stage or to decline his invitation to go on stage.

Don't get me wrong, if these allegations prove to be true then the employee should be fired, or at least suspended. I am very sceptically of these type lawsuits, as some people are just looking for a quick buck in our litigious society.

Not really sure how any of that means you know what "any jury" would do. That's just you. I think there's a difference between going to a comic club where you expect to be teased and going to the taping of a family show.

Knowing the guy was checking her out does NOT in any way, shape or form make her responsible for anything the comedian did afterwards.

 

[racefanof88]

Not really sure how any of that means you know what "any jury" would do. That's just you. I think there's a difference between going to a comic club where you expect to be teased and going to the taping of a family show.

Knowing the guy was checking her out does NOT in any way, shape or form make her responsible for anything the comedian did afterwards.

I don't think I said I know what any other jury would do, only what I would do if on the jury. While there is a difference in the taping of a family show and a comedy club, a comedian is a comedian and they all take jabs at the audience.

I agree that him checking her out does not in any way make her responsible for what he allegedly did to her. I just find it hard to reconcile the inaction on her part with the charges being leveled at Disney. I don't know of anyone who would willingly participate in their own sexual assault, UNLESS their life is in danger and hers clearly was not.

 

[nytimez]

I don't think I said I know what any other jury would do, only what I would do if on the jury. While there is a difference in the taping of a family show and a comedy club, a comedian is a comedian and they all take jabs at the audience.

I agree that him checking her out does not in any way make her responsible for what he allegedly did to her. I just find it hard to reconcile the inaction on her part with the charges being leveled at Disney. I don't know of anyone who would willingly participate in their own sexual assault, UNLESS their life is in danger and hers clearly was not.

First, she didn't go to a comedy show -- she want to see the taping of a TV sitcom. Most people don't realize these shows have comics that come out and warm up of the audience... and even if they did, I don't think they would expect an R-rated act in front of "Good Luck Charlie."

Second, from my reading of what happened (and granted, neither of us were there), I you're taking it way too far when you say she was a willing participant in her own sexual assault.

She saw the guy check her out, and I think she thought nothing of it. Just because a guy is checking you out doesn't mean you should assume he is about to assault you. When he invited her on the stage, again, just because he checked her out doesn't mean she has agreed to or should expect to be treated the way she (allegedly) was.

She clearly took offense to the spanking thing and perhaps genuinely believed he was trying to apologize when he asked for a kiss on the cheek. Rather than make a scene in front of an audience, she perhaps gamely played along -- and the last straw was when the kiss on the cheek turned into a kiss on the mouth.

Again, I don't know if that's how it unfolded. All either of us have is the media account. But based on that alone, it's not fair to simply dismiss her as a willing participant in her own sexual assault.

 

[JDinFL]

If she "saw him looking at her body" she must have thought some thing about it, good or bad. and I would think it would have been some kind of mock spanking. Maybe he touched her a couple of times by accident?? If we had the youtube video then maybe we could go ahead and try this case here.
What are the damages worth when someone tricks you into kissing thier mouth instead of their cheek?
If one was worried about germs/disease one could make an argument that kissing a stranger in public might not be a good idea on either location.
The problem is you don't know if she took offense to what happened or saw an opportunity. There are more sue happy people then most realize and more on the way, because of the seemingly easy money and most large companies willingness to settle.
When I see something like this I just hope justice is served,either way.

 

[racefanof88]

First, she didn't go to a comedy show -- she want to see the taping of a TV sitcom. Most people don't realize these shows have comics that come out and warm up of the audience... and even if they did, I don't think they would expect an R-rated act in front of "Good Luck Charlie."

Second, from my reading of what happened (and granted, neither of us were there), I you're taking it way too far when you say she was a willing participant in her own sexual assault.

She saw the guy check her out, and I think she thought nothing of it. Just because a guy is checking you out doesn't mean you should assume he is about to assault you. When he invited her on the stage, again, just because he checked her out doesn't mean she has agreed to or should expect to be treated the way she (allegedly) was.

She clearly took offense to the spanking thing and perhaps genuinely believed he was trying to apologize when he asked for a kiss on the cheek. Rather than make a scene in front of an audience, she perhaps gamely played along -- and the last straw was when the kiss on the cheek turned into a kiss on the mouth.

Again, I don't know if that's how it unfolded. All either of us have is the media account. But based on that alone, it's not fair to simply dismiss her as a willing participant in her own sexual assault.

"The complaint states: "Plaintiff arrived at studio along with her two minor children, her sister-in-law and her three (3) daughters. During breaks in the taping of the scenes, Disney and Laugh had hired Pearson to entertain the audience.

During the taping plaintiff left to use the restroom. It was observed that when she walked past Pearson that he was 'checking out' plaintiff's body. Pearson was observed looking up and down plaintiff's body in a lewd manner. This lewd behavior was further substantiated by plaintiff's minor daughter and plaintiff's sister-in-law's observing and commenting to the plaintiff warning plaintiff about Pearson's lewd behavior." The Democratic Underground.

So from reports she was aware of his "lewd" manner, but she still CHOSE to participate. She in no way had an obligation to participate, or continue to participate, once he had touched her inappropriately.

My problem with the whole issue is using the word sexual to describe the alleged assault. I think it diminishes the definition of sexual assault by lumping something like this in with a crime that leaves some women scared for life. While I don't condone his behavior in any way, I just don't see why anyone would participate, or continue to participate, in something they are calling a sexual assault. And yes she did participate. After being told of his "lewd" manner of checking her out, she joined him on stage, after the alleged assault she stayed on stage and even agreed to kiss her "attacker".


Did she file charges against him for sexual assault? No! she hired a lawyer to sue. In California a sexual assault conviction carries with it a possible sentence of 24, 36 or 48 months in prison, as well as a possible $10,000 fine. My(and I said MY) first action would be to go to the police and file charges. I would want the creep off the streets so he could not do it again to any other woman!! I would want the "sex offender" arrested, especially since he works for Disney and has access to children!!

 

[racefanof88]

If she "saw him looking at her body" she must have thought some thing about it, good or bad. and I would think it would have been some kind of mock spanking. Maybe he touched her a couple of times by accident?? If we had the youtube video then maybe we could go ahead and try this case here.
What are the damages worth when someone tricks you into kissing thier mouth instead of their cheek?
If one was worried about germs/disease one could make an argument that kissing a stranger in public might not be a good idea on either location.
The problem is you don't know if she took offense to what happened or saw an opportunity. There are more sue happy people then most realize and more on the way, because of the seemingly easy money and most large companies willingness to settle.
When I see something like this I just hope justice is served,either way.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[nytimez]

"The complaint states: "Plaintiff arrived at studio along with her two minor children, her sister-in-law and her three (3) daughters. During breaks in the taping of the scenes, Disney and Laugh had hired Pearson to entertain the audience.

During the taping plaintiff left to use the restroom. It was observed that when she walked past Pearson that he was 'checking out' plaintiff's body. Pearson was observed looking up and down plaintiff's body in a lewd manner. This lewd behavior was further substantiated by plaintiff's minor daughter and plaintiff's sister-in-law's observing and commenting to the plaintiff warning plaintiff about Pearson's lewd behavior." The Democratic Underground.

So from reports she was aware of his "lewd" manner, but she still CHOSE to participate. She in no way had an obligation to participate, or continue to participate, once he had touched her inappropriately.

My problem with the whole issue is using the word sexual to describe the alleged assault. I think it diminishes the definition of sexual assault by lumping something like this in with a crime that leaves some women scared for life. While I don't condone his behavior in any way, I just don't see why anyone would participate, or continue to participate, in something they are calling a sexual assault. And yes she did participate. After being told of his "lewd" manner of checking her out, she joined him on stage, after the alleged assault she stayed on stage and even agreed to kiss her "attacker".


Did she file charges against him for sexual assault? No! she hired a lawyer to sue. In California a sexual assault conviction carries with it a possible sentence of 24, 36 or 48 months in prison, as well as a possible $10,000 fine. My(and I said MY) first action would be to go to the police and file charges. I would want the creep off the streets so he could not do it again to any other woman!! I would want the "sex offender" arrested, especially since he works for Disney and has access to children!!

I think your chosen course of action, if this had happened to you, is also legitimate and in many ways better to the path this woman has chosen.

However, not everyone reacts the same way in every situation. I don't disagree with many of your points -- but I don't think any of what you say is enough to dismiss this woman's complaint out of hand.

I am always skeptical of lawsuits such as these as there is chance they could be cash grabs. But as I said earlier, this one should be easy enough to corroborate: It was in a room with possibly hundreds of witnesses and cameras that may or may not have been rolling.

If they settle and the comic remains on the set, I think then maybe this woman didn't have a strong case. If they settle and the comic is "reassigned" or outright fired, it's a sign she did.

Either way, cases like these often don't go to court. We'll see.

 

[Queenofspoons]

Here is my interpertation on this, the reason why he was watching her was because he was either picking out people to joke about or to be in the act. The spanking could just have been a butt patt and she blew it out of preportion to get a lawsuit. The kissing was something to make the audience laugh, but I do agree thats a little gross (kissing a complete stranger, EWW ).

In conclusion, unless proven otherwise in court, the lady is just over reacting to sue Disney.

 

[racefanof88]

I think your chosen course of action, if this had happened to you, is also legitimate and in many ways better to the path this woman has chosen.

However, not everyone reacts the same way in every situation. I don't disagree with many of your points -- but I don't think any of what you say is enough to dismiss this woman's complaint out of hand.

I am always skeptical of lawsuits such as these as there is chance they could be cash grabs. But as I said earlier, this one should be easy enough to corroborate: It was in a room with possibly hundreds of witnesses and cameras that may or may not have been rolling.

If they settle and the comic remains on the set, I think then maybe this woman didn't have a strong case. If they settle and the comic is "reassigned" or outright fired, it's a sign she did.

Either way, cases like these often don't go to court. We'll see.

Having had a friend who suffered a horrible full sexual assault at the hands of someone she knew and trusted, makes it extremely hard for me to see how this can even be compared in the same book, much less category. The devastation, shame and guilt she felt still haunt her to this day, and it happened over 25 years ago. Women are not treated with the respect they deserve when something that traumatic happens, and I feel that by lumping this minor assault in with sexual assault it diminishes the true horror of the crime.

While it may seem that I am not in favor of this woman getting justice, nothing could be further from the truth. If indeed it is found that his actions were inappropriate, and he physically assaulted her, then he should pay. My issue is with how it is being categorized as a "sexual" assault. Jail is the only place for a man who sexually assaults a woman, not left out on the street to continue these actions.

 

[racefanof88]

Here is my interpertation on this, the reason why he was watching her was because he was either picking out people to joke about or to be in the act. The spanking could just have been a butt patt and she blew it out of preportion to get a lawsuit. The kissing was something to make the audience laugh, but I do agree thats a little gross (kissing a complete stranger, EWW ).

In conclusion, unless proven otherwise in court, the lady is just over reacting to sue Disney.

 

[nytimez]

Having had a friend who suffered a horrible full sexual assault at the hands of someone she knew and trusted, makes it extremely hard for me to see how this can even be compared in the same book, much less category. The devastation, shame and guilt she felt still haunt her to this day, and it happened over 25 years ago. Women are not treated with the respect they deserve when something that traumatic happens, and I feel that by lumping this minor assault in with sexual assault it diminishes the true horror of the crime.

While it may seem that I am not in favor of this woman getting justice, nothing could be further from the truth. If indeed it is found that his actions were inappropriate, and he physically assaulted her, then he should pay. My issue is with how it is being categorized as a "sexual" assault. Jail is the only place for a man who sexually assaults a woman, not left out on the street to continue these actions.

It's OBVIOUSLY not a sexual assault in the usual sense. I'm not so sure about the legal definition in California. But as I said earlier about the long list of charges -- up to and including the sexual assault:

All the charges -- "sexual assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention of unfit employees, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- are just lawyer-speak to make the case... regardless of whether or not all those charges apply or are exaggerations, it sounds to me like this woman was probably mistreated given the situation and context.

 

[PixieTinkerbellsMom]

Holy toledo! People will sue over anythign these days especially if they think they can get PAID.
I love it when my husband gets selected for humiliation on stage at shows. Little did I know I could sue. This woman needs to get a job. Sad that her kids are hearing its okay to bring litigation over such nothingness.

 

[PixieTinkerbellsMom]

Holy toledo! People will sue over anythign these days especially if they think they can get PAID.
I love it when my husband gets selected for humiliation on stage at shows. Little did I know I could sue. This woman needs to get a job. Sad that her kids are hearing its okay to bring litigation over such nothingness.

 

[Oglet]

She got spanked and expects money?

I have to pay to be spanked, something isn't right here.

Life is so unfair