← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
Jason Derulo: Sexual allegations and goat sacrifice
00:29:05
All you need to know about the sexual harassment case against Jason Derulo
Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:00]
A
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
B
What do you think makes the perfect snack?
- [00:08]
A
Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient. Could you be more specific? When it's cravinient. Okay. Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at AM pm. I'm seeing a pattern here. Well, yeah, we're talking about what I crave, which is anything from AM pm. What more could you want?
- [00:28]
B
Stop by AM PM where the snacks.
- [00:30]
A
And drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. Convenient? That's Cravenians AM PM too much. Good stuff. Hey, this is Sarah. Look, I'm standing out front of a.m. p.m. Right now and well, you're sweet and.
- [00:42]
B
All, but I found something more fulfilling.
- [00:45]
A
Even kind of cheesy. But I like it. Sure, you met some of my dietary.
- [00:49]
B
Needs, but they've just got it all. So.
- [00:51]
A
Farewell. Oatmeal, so long.
- [00:53]
B
Use strange soggy.
- [00:55]
A
Break up with bland breakfast and taste AM PM's bacon, egg and cheese biscuit made with cage free eggs, smoked bacon and melty cheese on a buttery biscuit. AM P M. Too much. Good stuff.
- [01:09]
B
Goatskin and fish scales. We look at the bizarre details in the case against Jason Derulo. Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty, a singer who claims platinum selling artist Jason Derulo sexually harassed her and sabotaged her career, has refiled her lawsuit against him. This time in New York.
- [01:30]
A
She's going to have to be so credible because the biggest question that's going to be asked for on the stand is, well, did y' all ever sleep together?
- [01:36]
B
As always. If you've got questions, send them to me on social media or WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 0330678. Triple one four. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on those push notifications so you never miss a thing. Joining me now to go through it is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina. Hi, Sean, welcome back.
- [01:56]
A
Hey, Anushka. How's everybody doing?
- [01:57]
B
How are you guys doing over there? Turbulent times.
- [02:00]
A
You good? Between hurricanes and people shooting each other, we're going to make it okay, I think.
- [02:07]
B
Well, we're crossing our fingers and you know, that the UK is a lovely place to live.
- [02:11]
A
And so I have heard.
- [02:11]
B
I'm just so I've heard. I hear what you say about our food. But now, I wanted to talk to you about this lawsuit because it's not a new one. It's been refiled in New York. We'll get into why that was in a little bit. But there's some interesting things about plaintiff understanding in this that I don't quite get how that would be worked out in a civil court. So let's go through some of the details. It is filed by an R and B artist called Imaja. Now, she alleges in the lawsuit that in or around August 2021, she received a message from Jason Derulo. I mean, insert your own version of singing his name. Received a message from Derulo, who was in his early 30s. She was 23 at the time, on Instagram, saying he was creating a joint venture with Atlantic Records. So that's one of the big ones. And his own label, Future History, and he wanted to sign a female artist. He said he'd specifically, specifically chosen her. In. In around fall of 2021, they hashed out the details. A debut mix or an EP within four months and a full album within six months. And a key thing is that he would use his star power and he would collaborate with her on her first single in order to push it out. She signed a contract, it says in the lawsuit, that made Derulo her boss, in that he could cancel studio sessions, he could decide if her project moved forwards, he could change things, her creative direction, et cetera. Now, she then says around November 2021, on November 2nd, during a late night recording session in LA, he allegedly tells her that if she wants to, quote, make it in the music industry, she would have to take part in a goat skin and fish scales. And that is a direct quote in the lawsuit. Quote, goat skin and fish scales. And it says the plaintiff was confused and asked what that meant. Derulo explained it was a Haitian reference, essentially describing ritualistic sex acts, the sacrifice of a goat and its blood and cocaine use. It then goes on to allege that the crudeness and timing of this comment made its meaning clear. Derulo was propositioning plaintiff for sex and hard drugs as a quid pro quo for his mentorship. Derulo is of Haitian descent, and plaintiff understood he was invoking a cultural metaphor to suggest sexual ritual. And it goes on to talk about something called quid pro quo, sexual harassment. I'm going to break that down in a second. But first, we know what Jason Derulo has to say about these allegations because he posted a statement on his Instagram.
- [04:22]
A
I wouldn't normally comment but these claims are completely false and hurtful. I stand against all forms of harassment, and I remain supportive of anybody following their dreams. I've always strived to live my life in a positively impactful way, and that's why I sit here before you, deeply offended by these defamatory claims. God bless.
- [04:51]
B
You're shaking your head now. We've spoken about Instagram statements before, particularly with Diddy.
- [04:57]
A
You know why I'm shaking my head then?
- [04:59]
B
Can you just refresh our memory, why you're not in favor of them?
- [05:03]
A
There is nothing that hurts a person's case like their own words. Because you can't walk back your own words. You cannot say that you're misinterpreted when it's you saying things. And so when we advise individuals to give statements and sayings of this nature, we always refuse to use words like I always. I never. You know, those words that just say that don't leave wiggle room. And so when he says things, I always do this. If there is a person, a woman, a child, an individual who can come back later and say, but, Jason, don't you remember when you did blank to me? That will hurt his case quicker than anything else because that will be considered a lie. I do not enjoy those statements. I do not enjoy it because now the people are looking at him, judging his body language, how he acts, how he's reacting. It's just stupid. Just flat out just stupid. I just never suggest.
- [05:53]
B
Well, we spoke about this before in a federal trial, and we, of course, if you guys want to go back and listen to the Diddy episodes. We heard Diddy's Instagram apology statement for the video of him assaulting Cassie in the hallway of a Hotel in 2016. We heard it multiple times. Is it the same in a civil case where they could play Jason Derulo's statement in court, or is that specific to federal.
- [06:14]
A
It's the same, and it's kind of worse because don't forget that he's in a plaintiff lawsuit. The difference in the Diddy case is Diddy never had to sit down for a deposition. He never sat down to a sworn statement so other lawyers could ask him questions about it. Jason Derulo is going to be sat down and he is going to be grilled. And so that statement will be picked apart for everything that he has ever potentially done wrong or could be interpreted the wrong way. So in a weight, in a civil context, those statements hurt more because you can be questioned about them. Diddy was never questioned about his public apology. We just Thought it was dumb. Jason De is going to be questioned about the thing that he put on the Instagram post, and it lasts forever. He can't get away from it.
- [06:52]
B
That's so interesting. The other thing I said I wanted to pick up on was the quid pro quo sexual harassment. We've spoken about sexual harassment before on this podcast. We've spoken about hostile work environments. This is a new. This is new terminology for us. Sean, what does that mean?
- [07:05]
A
We've talked about. The environment of your workplace is so pervasive with sexual harassment. You can't work there. And it's not necessarily somebody doing something to you. It could be the equivalent of them having naked pictures all over the wall or telling sexual jokes in and around you. That creates a hostile work environment. It could be a situation where somebody is coming to you and completely asking you for sexual favors over and over again, or one sexual act. The difference when all of these. And this is one we have not talked about is what's called quid pro quo harassment. That's basically a Latin phrase that means this for that. Okay? When you break it down, it means this for that, which means very simply, you want this. I want to get laid. If I get laid, you'll get this. And that's what makes it sexual harassment. You are basically prostituting, if you will, somebody who wants something. So you're saying you want to be in the music industry. I'll get you in it if you have sex with me. It is very simple. And the reason you don't see a lot of quid pro quo cases or quid pro quo harassment is they're difficult to prove because most people are much more sophisticated than that. I hate to say it. They're much more subtle. And there's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I just wanted to go on a date. You chose not to go on a date with me. That's on you. She's saying this was very specific. You, we got to get the goats. We got to do this. And if we do this, then you'll get what you want. So that's quid pro quo. This for that.
- [08:30]
B
You're talking about specifics here. But actually, when you read the section of the lawsuit, you have certain things that are within quotation marks. So we can assume that these are direct quotes that. That the plaintiff alleges that Jason Deo said and other things that speak about the plaintiff's understanding of what was said or the plaintiff's interpretation of what was said. And that's not specifics. Now, I Want to go through this? We have goat skin and fish scales in quotation marks. And it says, plaintiff confused, asked what that meant. And Derulo explained it was a Haitian reference, essentially describing ritualistic sex acts. The sacrifice of a goat and its blood and cocaine use. It then later says Duro is of Haitian descent. And plaintiff understood he was invoking a cultural metaphor to suggest sexual ritual. Suggest sexual ritual is what I'm confused about here, because if she had alleged and then he said, we got to get up here and we got to do the two step, and then we got to go over there and this is part of the ritual, and it's got to be a crescent moon, etc. I'd be like, okay, I understand the use of the word ritual, but suggest sexual ritual. Couldn't his lawyers pull that apart? That's your understanding of what was said, and there's a lot of room for interpretation.
- [09:35]
A
Absolutely. And that is actually what's going to happen. And if you see a lot of these lawsuits that we've talked about, Nishka back and forth, you usually have text messages. You have other people in the room who have seen stuff. What's going to make this one interesting is this is just a conversation between the two of them. And she has interpreted what has been said, and his response is going to be one of two things. And I think he's going all in on, I never said that. Or he can go into, you know, we were just joking. Or number three, you interpreted something completely not the way that it was meant. And that's all three. When you don't have it specifically in writing and in a text. And even if you do, he's going to go with one of those three things. You have completely misinterpreted everything that I have said.
- [10:16]
B
The lawsuit then goes on to talk about some of the repeated conduct she says that was happening with Derulo and her. It says, quote, the message was clear, sleep with me and do some lines of coke, and I'll make you a star. Says that the plaintiff felt cornered and didn't know how to respond to this demand from the man who held her career in his hands. It then alleges in the lawsuit there was a pattern of booking studio sessions after 9pm and repeatedly asking her if she would have a drink. The lawsuit goes on to allege that what began as a dream opportunity quickly descended into a nightmare of quid pro quo sexual harassment and intimidation. Derulo exploited his power, implying that plaintiff's success was conditioned on participating in degrading sexual rituals. And cocaine use. So a lot of that is hinging on the power dynamic between the two. So when you actually come back into looking at the contract, he isn't directly listed as her boss, but she says that some of the stuff that he was able to do in that he could schedule sessions, he could decide what projects move forwards and what didn't, essentially made him her boss. So isn't that far trickier to prove the power dynamic if it's not actually written down on paper?
- [11:18]
A
No. You can become a de facto somebody's boss if you have dominion, power, and control over somebody. There's certain situations where a boss can tell somebody else you're in charge of this person. That person becomes your boss. They become de facto, if you will. So that won't be, I don't think, entirely hard to prove that he had. And the phrase is always dominion and control over her. So that won't be that hard to prove.
- [11:42]
B
Okay, so we have another phrase there used. Derulo exploited his power, implying that plaintiff's success was conditioned on participating in degrading sexual rituals and cocaine use. We've got the word then degraded, added into the sexual rituals. And once again, it's implication. Implication. How would you go about in a civil court making that foolproof or bulletproof, Those ideas that. It was implied, heavily implied. That's what she understood. What would you want to bring up as evidence?
- [12:08]
A
I mean, the biggest thing that's going to come with her testimony, and this was going to make this lawsuit truly interesting, Ishka, because it is a he said, she said. So her credibility is going to be crucial on this case because she is going to want to get on the stand and say, you have to believe me. Because let me tell you my history. Let me tell you why. Let me tell you the situation that I find myself in in a lot of times, and people aren't going to like hearing this. In these types of lawsuits, what usually happens, and they've happened throughout history, if you've looked them up, the quid pro quo, harassment, Anushka, actually has happened. Okay, Meaning the situation has happened. Meaning normally what ends up happening is the person comes and says, I had to do this. I slept with him because he made me. And then I got this, you understand, because they proved the quid pro quo. Her last minute in this situation, don't forget, it never happened. So that's what makes this case a little bit different, because Derulo can say, yeah, that was never going to happen. I don't know what she's talking about. We never slept together. We never hooked up. We never did anything. This was all in her own mind, I can joke. And that's what this lawsuit is going to come on. That's why she's going to have to be so credible. Because the biggest question that's going to be asked for, understand is, well, did y' all ever sleep together? Did he ever do anything? Did he ever touch you? That's where it's going to be interesting.
- [13:26]
B
One of the allegations in the lawsuit is that one time she does acquiesce to having a drink with him and is extremely strong. And the lawsuit lays out that it seems that it was mixed that way, designed to get her inebriated. But then it says as well, quote, Around November 18th, Derulo arranged for plaintiff to fly to New York City with him and his team to meet Atlantic Records top executives Craig Kalman and Julie Greenwald and showcase plaintiff's progress. Just minutes before the meeting, Derulo blindsided plaintiff by revealing that another artist, a young woman referred to here as Rosa Doe, would be joining the meeting. Says the plaintiff was puzzled as this meeting was supposed to be about her. Why involve another singer? While waiting outside the conference room, plaintiff and Rosa talked. Rosa confided to plaintiff that Derulo had invited Rosa on the trip because he was trying to, I'm gonna say, have sex with her. It's not phrased like that. He was trying to have sex with her. So because that allegation is in that it seems to corroborate the idea that he was having female singers around him that he purports to be nurturing, but was actually looking to engage in sexual activity with. Would we then be expecting this Rosa Doe to take the stand if they're referenced in the lawsuit?
- [14:30]
A
You remember the very first thing we talked about is his Instagram statement. I have never. I always. So forth. That's the type of thing that hurts his lawsuit is if they can get this Rosa to testify that he was doing the same thing. To me, that is probably going to be a strong harbinger to prove to a jury that this is a course of conduct of what he actually does. You can't believe what he says when he says he would never do this. And he always respects artists, and it helps her with her implication arguments that he was doing the same thing to the person. It was implied, it was suggested, and Rosa knew what he wanted. So I actually think Rosa is going to be the best thing that could possibly help this lawsuit if they can get her to test.
- [15:14]
B
What do you think Makes the perfect snack.
- [15:16]
A
Hmm. It's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient. Could you be more specific? When it's craving.
- [15:22]
B
Okay.
- [15:23]
A
Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at am, pm. I'm seeing a pattern here. Well, yeah, we're talking about what I crave, which is anything from am, pm. What more could you want?
- [15:37]
B
Stop by am pm where the snacks.
- [15:38]
A
And drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience. Am, pm. Too much. Good stuff. This is the story of the 1. As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers. Also, that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [16:17]
B
Yeah. Jason Derilo denies all of this. That goes on to say, plaintiffs said that she was caught off guard by Rose's presence and found it unusual since she wasn't told another artist would be there at this comment. So she makes this comment. It says to Jason deo, he exploded. He began screaming at plaintiff, pounding his arm rests in rage. What does she have to do with you? He asks. We weren't going to tell you anything. We don't have to tell you anything. His voice was so loud and so angry that plaintiff, seated in the back, feared he might turn around and hit her. She felt completely unsafe. My thing with this is how much of a defense is it saying, I was genuinely heated and worked up and you got a genuine human reaction from me of anger. But this is not part of a pattern. Is that a defense to a hostile work environment? Saying she's listed this incident of perceived aggression, but that's actually me just responding as a human because she said something that really, really annoyed me.
- [17:08]
A
That would be great if it was allowable. But think about you at your employee or your boss. And if your boss came to you and just said, sorry I cursed you out. It was just a genuine human reaction. You have a right to say, you can't talk to me like that. I am a human being. And I hope nobody in my office is watching that.
- [17:27]
B
Strike that. Strike that. Thank you.
- [17:29]
A
Yeah. Everybody be quiet.
- [17:31]
B
They'll hold this up in court.
- [17:32]
A
Yeah, they've got. Okay, hopefully, hopefully they don't subscribe to the podcast.
- [17:38]
B
That's not true. Everybody remember to subscribe to the podcast and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Thank you.
- [17:44]
A
Well done.
- [17:45]
B
Thank you very much. Thank you.
- [17:46]
A
But you can't slip up one time. I mean, you can, but everything is actionable. And that's why we're so careful about the things that we say and do at work. It's sort of like your boss can't come in and just tell one off color sexual, racist remote joke and just say, oh, I just said it one time. There's a human reaction. That's why you have to be careful. So his reaction, if he did it, can be used against him and it is in this lawsuit.
- [18:10]
B
But when we spoke about hostile work environment, doesn't the pattern have to be, first of all, pattern and second of all, invasive?
- [18:15]
A
You make me so happy. She's learning. Go ahead.
- [18:19]
B
So then wouldn't the defense be. It's not part of a pattern. This is one thing that he shouldn't have done. And he admits that he's repentant, but this is not, you know, indicative of the broader working environment.
- [18:30]
A
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. You have officially gotten it. Because everybody gets confused. And you're exactly right. How is it hostile if it just happened one time? I'm an asshole. But this isn't the environment at work. This is just like you said, who I am. Now you can bring your lawsuit. And what'll end up happening is a court will say, ma', am, we don't see a pattern. We see one isolated incident. You have the right to bring it. But this is not enough to get to the bar to send this case to a jury. And what she'll have to say is, let me show you other consistent conduct or let me show you other individuals. Because remember, the other thing we can talk about is an extreme one time example can be enough. You remember the Clarence Thomas example that we talked about with the pubic hair.
- [19:12]
B
On people on a Coke can?
- [19:13]
A
There you go.
- [19:14]
B
Yeah. People on a Coke.
- [19:14]
A
That's enough to shock the conscience. And the question is, is your boss just yelling at you one time enough, or is it pubic on the Coke hair enough?
- [19:22]
B
But okay, pubic hair on the Coke can. If you don't understand what we're talking about. This is from a previous episode where Clarence Thomas was a judge. A judge. Help me.
- [19:33]
A
He was not a judge at the time, but he is a Supreme Court justice now.
- [19:37]
B
Yeah, he's a Supreme Court justice. Now, somebody that was a subordinate to him in the workplace claims that he left a pubic hair on a Coke can and gave it to her. Is Clarence denying this?
- [19:46]
A
He 100% denied it.
- [19:47]
B
But the idea being that that is so abhorrent to any casual listener or intent listener that it's enough to say there's a hostile work environment. Here we have somebody shouting at somebody in the back of a car. Now, the plaintiff says this is not an isol incident. She talks about aggression and raised voices and feeling intimidated at another time as well. So my question is, how many can you get away with before it becomes a pattern? 2, 3, 4? What is it?
- [20:13]
A
And that's the great question, and that's the great mystery on what becomes the pattern. And because this music industry is not your typical environment, it's not a 9 to 5 job. She wasn't there from 9 to 5. She is an independent artist. She probably works with him once every three or four months. So who knows on in her situation. Let's think about it this way. She sees a guy three times a month and three times he's really, really mean to her. Three times he's really, really negative to her, and he only sees her three times. That can become a pattern.
- [20:44]
B
Now look, the lawsuit goes on to talk about something that we've spoken about a lot on this podcast, and particularly when we were doing the Diddy trial. Protection in the workplace, in perhaps non traditional environments, the music industry being a prime example of that. Now, the lawsuit alleges that around July 19, 2022, feeling isolated, plaintiff reached out to Atlantic's representative, Ben Horan, and confided in him that she felt Derulo was creating a hostile environment for her. Part of the allegation is that he had stopped booking studio sessions. He wasn't helping her with her project. Now, she says that the representative for Atlantic Records responded with empathy and said, quote, the Atlantic team wants you to win, but I can't say the same for Jason. This was a critical admission, says the lawsuit from Atlantic executive, that Derulo's support had turned to antipathy. However, this executive, this representative of Atlantic Records, did not escalate plaintiff's harassment complaint to HR or higher management. It says he attempted to smooth things over informally, but no formal action was taken. So we have something that's been alleged a lot of times is that the process that's supposed to happen in a workplace, and I don't know if this is enshrined in law in the US you can tell Me. But if you make a complaint like this, that should be referred up to who can then pursue that and investigate and see what's going on. Is that enshrined in law or is it just like general practice?
- [22:06]
A
It general practice, it depends on. And you know, in this case we talk about, they have a lot of contracts and agreements. It depends on the contracts, it depends on the business. If that's the way they do things, if they have a proper protocol, it sounds like they do. Usually you have a sexual harassment policy, but it's not enshrined, it's not canon. It just really depends on where you are now.
- [22:27]
B
It then goes on to say, so she's reported this. She's voiced her frustration with what's going on and her fear because she said she felt intimidated. It goes on to say that around September 6, 2022, plaintiff received a phone call from Atlantic and Future History were releasing her, quote, releasing her from her recording contract effective immediately. They framed it as if they were doing her a favor. That's what the lawsuit said, saying words to the effect of, we know you're unhappy, so we want you to be happy. You're free to go. We've heard this phrase, time in memoriam, like, over and over again. You hear it all the time. You're released from your contract. What is the point in signing a contract if somebody can just be like, I release you. I don't get that.
- [23:06]
A
It really depends on the language of the contract. But you're exactly right. You can release somebody from their contract, you can let them go. Like those type of employment contracts in the United States, you have to be careful about them because you can't make somebody work for you. Understand? We've got the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, which basically free individuals not to be into forced servitude. So you can't make somebody work for you. And so that's the best way to say is you are released from your contract and you can go elsewhere. You can fly, little butterfly. You can go wherever else you want to do and do whatever you want to do because we can't force you to work for us.
- [23:39]
B
What's the point in the contract if everybody's releasing everybody from everything?
- [23:42]
A
Why, you can always quit a job. You can always go elsewhere. Now, what ends up happening is there's all this language in the contracts that says you can quit whenever time you want to quit. The problem is you can't work for our competitor. You can't go do this over here. You cannot compete against us and that's where the essence of a non compete clause comes in. Maybe we have royalty fees, maybe we have publishing fees, maybe we have licenses, maybe we have booked concert dates in the future. All of these things we can sue you for, for breaching your contract, but you can always quit. But there's repercussions if you do.
- [24:18]
B
This is interesting. Should you be looking for a certain phraseology so it's more, a bit more binding on the side of the employer? Like if I was an up and coming rapper and I was signing and I was signing a contract, what is an alarming phrase that I should see? And you'd be like, anoushka. That is a red flag.
- [24:34]
A
History is replete of examples of musicians, stars who are young, who just randomly go and sign these contracts very quickly without looking at them because they're so excited to have a deal. And then five and 10 years later, they look back at these contracts and like, oh my God, what did I do? And so the first advice I give everybody is, before you do anything, I don't care who you are, I don't care how small it is, have your attorney review your contract. And then second, what you need to do is the biggest thing that I would look at if I was an artist is what are the repercussions if I quit? And those are the paragraphs you go right to. If I don't like this and I want to leave, what am I going to have to pay to get out of this contract? And what can you sue me for? Those are the things that I would care about.
- [25:16]
B
Great advice. Well, look, it goes on to say that around December 5, 2022, plaintiff filed an official complaint with Atlantic Records about defendant Derulo's violent behavior, discrimination, sexual harassment and the retaliation. Eventually, Atlantic's HR through Warner Music Group's HR replied on around January 9, 2023, summarizing an investigation. This is what the lawsuit alleges. They claim to have done an investigation into the plaintiff's alleg hr. Email from VP Marcus Lazada stated that Atlantic found no evidence that plaintiff had complained about harassment prior to her termination. Okay, how, how much weight does an internal investigation conducted by the record label you're making the accusation about stand up in a civil claims court.
- [25:59]
A
It's going to be powerful to a jury. I mean, a jury's going to look at it if it is done the right way. And that's why you always see, and I love this is you always see a lot of times that someone hires an independent outside agency to come in and do an investigation for them. We have hired Blank, this law firm, to come in and look into this. But if it is done the right way and done a good way, it could have a lot of weight and force and effect that they had an independent or themselves agency to look into these. And we found no credible claims of harassment. And what that also tells me is they found no emails, they found no text strings, they found no witnesses, which is going to make her lawsuit harder to prove.
- [26:36]
B
Now, look, we'll keep you up to date with this lawsuit. It's already been on a little bit of a journey because Imaja originally filed her claims in Los Angeles. That case was dismissed last year after a California judge determined her contracts contained clauses requiring any legal disputes to be heard in New York. Hence this new filing. And we will follow along, give you updates we have heard from Imajah herself and how this has impacted her. All this is what she had to say. I've been in the biggest transition, just.
- [27:01]
A
Trying to get back on my feet.
- [27:03]
B
I had to take therapy.
- [27:04]
A
The unfortunate thing is that, you know.
- [27:07]
B
Things keep getting thrown at you.
- [27:09]
A
So it's hard and it's like you against the system.
- [27:13]
B
Like, I wanted to make sure I'm doing better.
- [27:14]
A
I really do.
- [27:16]
B
So maybe I'm just like, I don't know.
- [27:19]
A
I don't know.
- [27:20]
B
I just want to be done with all of this.
- [27:22]
A
And it's so crazy because people throw this in my face to online. It is so bad. It's so bad because people don't know what I went through. I'm scared. Like, I don't. Like, I really feel like I just. I'm so scared. I'm so scared because, like, people don't come out about this stuff now.
- [27:40]
B
We asked Jason Derulo, his former manager, Frank Harris, and Atlantic Records to respond to the story, but we haven't heard back yet. In a statement to Rolling Stones magazine last April, Derulo's legal team said, we are fully committed to defending Jason's innocence against these blatantly false and baseless claims. If these false accusations are refiled in New York, we are confident that the New York court will ultimately dismiss the case and prove Jason's innocence. So that's what they had to say. Obviously, we heard what Jason had to say from his statement on Instagram earlier.
- [28:05]
A
Just one concept I have, and just question. I haven't heard her damages because of course, with every lawsuit, you got to have four things. You got to have a duty. If there's a breach of that duty, did that breach of the duty cause her damages. What did he supposedly do? Cause her financially. Because remember, every lawsuit you could have all this stuff. But what did it cost her? A lot of things I just heard in the clip you just said was about how people are being mean to her after she has filed a lawsuit and did not believe her. But what are her actual damages?
- [28:32]
B
This will sound familiar to those who did follow along with the Diddy case because it's in the same lane as stopped my projects from coming out. So she did not release that EP after four months. She did not release that album after six months. Other producers didn't want to work with her because it became clear, she alleges in the lawsuit that Atlantic or Future History were not going to be purchasing Beats. So stopped the project, stopped booking the studio sessions and held back her career and essentially wasted her time. Time where she could have been making money. So that's what I was saying. It's something we've heard before. There's similar themes that we're picking on again. Alleged abuse of power and then the. The power being the ability to progress or halt the career.
- [29:10]
A
I bet money you're gonna see later coming out shortly that she wasn't very good from their size that they didn't think she had talent and they decided to go in a different direction. And people didn't wanna work with her because she wasn't very good. Well, mark my words, that's what you're gonna hear because that's where you get to the damages is we didn't wanna work with her because there were better artists out there. Something of that nature.
- [29:28]
B
Well, it's also interesting, there was the reference to one of her singles being in collaboration with Chris Brown and they could hold up the fact that they obviously he is a multi, multi, multi million album selling artist. She's looking for the amount of money that she would have made if those projects had gone forward. So this is really about, I guess, them not fulfilling on the contractual agreements that they made at the beginning. It's interesting. I'll be interested to see how it moves forward.
- [29:54]
A
It's very interesting. I'm just wondering what are the speculative damages? Because it's like, what would you have made? I don't know. And that's going to be a question for the jury. Like it'd be one thing if I was entitled to a $1 million contract and they canceled it. But she's saying had this not happened, I would have gone on tour and I would have made. I mean, there's plenty of artists who don't make money.
- [30:12]
B
Sean, thank you so much for joining us today.
- [30:14]
A
Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.
- [30:18]
B
That was our resident trial attorney Sean Kent joining us from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushkum Tandadouati. Keep sending in your questions or ideas for stories you'd like to us to cover. You can get us on WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing.
- [30:45]
A
The traitors is back and this time with celebrities. Hang on, why wasn't I asked? Betrayals and mind games.
- [30:52]
B
Behavior that's usually reserved for backstage is.
- [30:54]
A
Now on national telly. I hope someone's told them. And once you've watched the latest action, join me, Ed Gamble for the official visualized podcast. We'll spill secrets and get to see the celebs react to discovering who the traitors really were. And this time I was in the castle too. The celebrity traitors uncloaked. Watch on iplayer. Listen for more on BBC Sounds. At the BBC, we go further so you see clearer. With a subscription to BBC.com, you get unlimited articles and videos, hundreds of ad free podcasts and the BBC News Channel streaming live 24. 7 from less than a dollar a week for your first year. Read, watch and listen to trusted independent journalism and storytelling. It all starts with a subscription to BBC.com find out more@BBC.com unlimited.