"Criminal": Legal Team Responds to Sexual, Racial Harassment Lawsuit

· BC

Posted in: Amazon Studios, TV | Tagged: criminal

"Criminal": Legal Team Responds to Sexual, Racial Harassment Lawsuit

Criminal series showrunner Ed Brubaker, Amazon MGM Studios, Big Indie Pictures, and EP Philipp Barnett's legal team responded to the suit.

Published Thu, 17 Sep 2026 23:37:10 -0500
by Ray Flook
|
Comments

Earlier this month, Amazon.com Services LLC, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Big Indie Pictures, Big Indie Gemini Inc., co-showrunner and executive producer Ed Brubaker, and executive producer Philipp Barnett were sued by a former production assistant on Prime Video's Charlie Hunnam and Emilia Clarke-starring adaptation of Brubaker and Sean Phillips's graphic novel series Criminal. The complaint alleged that the production companies and Barnett failed to correct or prevent a hostile work environment that Brubaker allegedly helped create. The complaint's twelve causes of action included claims of sexual harassment, racial and national-origin harassment, religious harassment and discrimination, assault, battery, negligence, and defamation. Now, lawyers for the defendants have filed a response (demurrer), pushing back on claims the legal team calls "meritless" and alleging that the plaintiff "is an opportunist, not a victim." A demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint and does not ask the court to make a determination on alleged facts. The defendants state that evidence will ultimately support their denials.

Image: SKTCHD Screencap; Criminal/E. Brubaker & S. Phillips

The plaintiff's 12-count complaint that was filed on September 2nd in LA County Superior Court noted that the lawsuit "arises from the sustained sexual, racial, national origin, and religious harassment that Plaintiff… a Sri Lankan American filmmaker with fourteen years of experience in the film industry, endured while working on the production of the forthcoming television series 'Criminal.'" Some of the claims in the lawsuit being reported included:

  • The complaint alleges that shortly after being hired by Big Indie Pictures, Big Indie Gemini, MGM, and Amazon to work on Criminal in February 2023, Brubaker began subjecting the plaintiff to "repeated and pervasive" sexual harassment. The alleged conduct included comments about running his hands through the plaintiff's hair, rubbing his back without consent, asking questions about his private life, and joking about rape.
  • The complaint alleges that Brubaker and others subjected the plaintiff to racial and national-origin stereotypes "about curry, comments invoking the 'Tiger Mom' trope, references to the show Never Have I Ever, and assumptions about his presumed facility with mathematics." The Sri Lankan American filmmaker also alleges that, as one of the few Muslim persons on the set, he "was subjected to a comment questioning whether he supports Hamas."
  • The plaintiff alleges that Brubaker pointed a "functional firearm" directly at his face and pulled the trigger. The complaint says the incident was witnessed by a senior producer.
  • The plaintiff alleges that after he advocated for himself and requested a promotion, the defendants retaliated by barring him from the set, stripping him of equipment and benefits, and accelerating his exit date. He also alleges that he has not been credited for his work on the production.
  • The plaintiff accuses the production companies of failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or address the alleged harassment and discrimination "occurring in plain view and witnessed by multiple people, including senior producers," and Barnett of allegedly directing others to avoid documenting complaints.

In the September 17 filing, the legal team for Amazon.com Services LLC, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Big Indie Pictures, Big Indie Gemini Inc., Brubaker, and Barnett addressed the lawsuit in its demurrer, stating that, "While [Plaintiff's] allegations must be treated as true on demurrer, the evidence in this case will ultimately and overwhelmingly demonstrate that he is an opportunist, not a victim, and that his claims are meritless." The legal response asserts in part:

  • According to the defense filing, the plaintiff's work on the production was approaching its natural close when, on September 11, 2024, he allegedly sent Brubaker an email titled "Why You Should Not Fire Me, and Promote Me Instead (a short essay)." It is further alleged that the plaintiff sought promotion from production assistant to executive producer.
  • The defendants contend that the plaintiff's emails and text messages contained no complaints of harassment, discrimination, or distress, and instead showed that he wanted to continue working with Brubaker.
  • The defendants allege the plaintiff acknowledged the harassment policy twice, completed anti-harassment training, and had six ways of reporting misconduct, including an anonymous hotline, but used none of them.
  • The defendants argue that the complaint lacks dates, frequency, and context sufficient to establish "severe or pervasive" harassment.
  • The defense filing states that the religious claim rests on "a single comment by an unidentified person."
  • The defendants contend the defamation claim identifies no actual statement, speaker, recipient or date.
  • The defense argues that the emotional-distress and negligence claims are barred by workers' compensation law.
  • The defense filing alleges that the plaintiff waited approximately twenty months to pursue the claims and filed the lawsuit "on the eve of the press circuit for Criminal," which the defense characterizes as an attempt to gain leverage.
  • The defendants argue that the "discrimination claims fail because neither alleges an adverse employment action nor a nexus" to the plaintiff's race, national origin, or religion.
  • Barnett argues that the complaint does not attribute any sexual, racial, national-origin, or religious remark directly to him.

The defendants further assert that the complaint describes the alleged sexual harassment without dates, frequency, or context. The filing also outlines why it considers the plaintiff's allegation that Brubaker pointed a "functional firearm" directly at his face and pulled the trigger (which was allegedly witnessed by a senior producer) to be "pure invention," noting, "Had that happened, every person in the room… had a duty to report it and in a post-'Rust' industry on high alert to firearms, someone would have. No one did. Defendants first learned of the supposed incident when [the plaintiff] reemerged peddling the story and demanding a payday." A hearing on the demurrer has been scheduled for October 15 at 9:30 am in Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge William Fahey.

Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!