A (3:36)

And people listening may also know him as the man who paid for Prince Harry and Meghan's security when they first moved over to the U.S. he even let them stay in his home. But this context about Tyler Perry's wealth, his power, his fame matters when it comes to the lawsuit. So there's two different ones that have been filed against Tyler Perry, right? Let's dig into the first one. This is involving an actor called Derek Dixon, which is. What does he allege?

C (4:05)

It's interesting because Derek Dixon filed a lawsuit and he's claiming so many things. He's claiming quid pro quo sexual harassment, which is sexual harassment, but it's in the employment arena. He has about 10 different causes of action. Workplace environment harassment. He's got gender violence. He's got, you know, sexual battery, sexual assault. He's talking about retaliation. So it's a huge complaint. It's 46 pages long, and he's asking for $260 million. So he is making some very serious allegations against Tyler Perry. So far, we've seen that Tyler Perry has denied the allegations. He has responded to the complaint, and he has denied everything.

A (4:52)

What is a quid pro quo? Sexual assault?

C (4:54)

So quid pro quo is when you have an individual who has a authority and position over an employee, and he uses that control, that power to gain some sexual advancements, and he threatens or retaliates against the employee in exchange for that sexual behavior. And so this is the context where the law has said, no, you cannot do that. Obviously, if you want to have a relationship with someone outside of the employment arena, fine. But when you're in the employment arena, you have a duty and a responsibility to your employees to provide a safe work environment. And once you cross that line, once you make these advancements towards your employees, or even if it's just verbal, it doesn't have to be physical, then you've created a hostile environment and you have this sort of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

A (5:57)

And I think the nature in which Dixon and Tyler Perry came into contact is quite interesting because Derek Dixon goes on to play a role in a show called the Oval, which is something that Tyler produced. Just talk to us about that backdrop, why it matters in terms of the fact that they actually worked together.

C (6:17)

Well, Dixon actually met Perry in the Atlanta Studio. Dixon was actually working at an event, and Dixon is claiming that Perry came up to him and they exchanged phone numbers and that he was offered a role, as you mentioned, Amber on the Oval. And Dixon actually played in multiple episodes, I think about 25 episodes. And that was back in 2019. So he's claiming these series of sexual advancements from 2019. He's basically saying that while he was working for Tyler Perry, he felt like he could not do anything other than respond to Tyler Perry, and he felt as though he was going to lose. And as a matter of fact, the character that he played, he played a character named Dale. The character that he played was shot four times in one of the episodes. And Dixon is claiming that Tyler Perry held that over his head and basically made him feel as though if Dixon didn't respond to Tyler's sexual advances, that the character would be killed off. So that's where you get the quid pro quo.

A (7:29)

And can we break down some of these allegations even more? Because Dixon alleges that there was an incident where Tyler Perry invited him over to his home, right?

C (7:39)

Yes, that's exactly right. And he's claiming that there was some touching involved, and he's also saying that he never responded to this, that he tried to tell Tyler Perry, no, back off. No, thank you. I don't want to be involved. He's claiming that there was touching on the body, and, you know, that he rejected those advancements. So it's a pretty serious complaint. It's the physical touching. It's the approaching. Even though he's telling Tyler Perry no. As a matter of fact, there's an text that says, listen, Dixon, you're going to have to learn how to say no, a little harsher. And it's almost like Tyler Perry is trying to defend himself and basically say he thought that Dixon wanted these advancements as well. So I think once we get a look at all of the communications between these two, we're going to be able to determine whether or not this was consensual or whether or not, in fact, Dixon was trying hard to push Perry off, and Perry kept advancing. So if, in fact, all of these text messages are admitted into court and the jury hears this, they're gonna be able to determine whether or not this was inappropriate behavior.

A (8:55)

Is there anything within the messages, the emails, that shows Derek Dixon encouraging Tyler Perry having an intimate relationship with him?

C (9:05)

Well, I think what we're seeing is more the opposite of that. It's a little bit more of Tyler Perry advancing towards Dixon. It's him saying, how do I look in this photo? There's one picture of Tyler Perry. You know, you can see some of his muscles and his body. And he's actually encouraging Dixon to say, well, what do I look like? And Dixon says something in one of the text messages about, oh, you know, great picture, great photo, meaning the backdrop, meaning the water, meaning the geography. And Tyler Perry comes back and he says something to the effect of, nope, what about how I look? And you do see Dixon saying, oh, okay, you look great. And one of the explanations for that that we're seeing in the press, Derek Dixon says, yeah, well, look, I did respond because I wanted to keep my job. I didn't want my car to be killed off. And so he's trying to explain that he felt uncomfortable, that he thought he had to do this, and that there would be retaliation if in fact, he didn't. So that's how he explains his. The responses to these text messages.

A (10:16)

And on another point that Alex Sparrow Perry's team could push back on is these pictures that you talked about, these underwear pictures, they could, of course, be interpreted in a very different way by his team.

D (10:29)

Yes.

C (10:29)

I mean, we're talking about the Derek Dixon case here, where we see these photos and the photos are provocative. And I think Tyler Perry initiates those contacts, and Derek Dixon, you know, sort of responds and says, oh, yeah, you look great. But the explanation by Derek Dixon is that, look, I said what I had to say. I was trying to keep my job. I didn't mean it. And those are not any sort of responses that I would have done. And I did it because I wanted to keep my job.

A (11:06)

Yeah. So those are some of the details in that first lawsuit involving Derek Dixon. Just a few months later, I noticed this interesting timing. Around the Christmas break, there was another filed involving another actor, a man called Mario Rodriguez. Just talk us through. How does that case compare what is being alleged by Mario Rodriguez against Tyler Perry?

C (11:29)

Well, Rodriguez filed a complaint, as you mentioned, during the holiday season. And it was not only during the holiday season. He filed it on Christmas Day, December 25th. I think that sends sort of a message. It is very similar to the Dixon complaint. It's a little less as far as volume is concerned. Dixon's complaint is 46 pages. This complaint by Rodriguez is only 23 pages. It's not as many allegations, but it's a copycat complaint. And it is actually by the same attorney. Jonathan Delshat is his name. And it's interesting because he is making these complaints that there was some sort of sexual harassment. He doesn't claim quid pro quo per se. He's saying that there was sexual assault, there was sexual battery. He's claiming that he has this emotional distress. But it is interesting because Rodriguez was only in one episode of a movie, and it was a very small role in that movie. It was a Halloween movie. It was called Boo Madea Halloween, and he had a small role in that. So it's not quite the same as Derek Dixon, who had a more prolonged experience and employment with Tyler Perry. So I think it's going to be somewhat different. What we've seen so far from Mario Rodriguez is a series of text messages, but the text messages are very different from Dixon's. It's really Rodriguez who's reaching out to Tyler Perry, and he's basically saying, look, I really, really appreciate how helpful you've been. I'm indebted to you. And there's another series of text messages where he's saying, look, I'm in financial distress. And again, we see the attorney for Tyler Perry saying, this is all made up. There's nothing here. It's mocha mirrors. He's just trying to get $77 million, which also, in my opinion, Amber, is a very strange number. 77. Where do you get that?

A (13:38)

There's been a lot of talk online about these text messages, that there was exchanges after the allegations of abuse had taken place. I just wondered, when people hear text messages like that, appearing friendly, polite, even grateful to someone who they allege is an abuser, how do the courts actually interpret that kind of evidence?

C (14:00)

It's interesting because there are two sides to that, the court and the jury, because both of these are going to be jury trials if they get to that point. Look at those text messages subsequent to the event. The court might think, why did it take so long for you to respond to this and file a complaint when in fact, you have these text messages which are very positive. You didn't say anything negative in these text messages. So they're going to look at that and think that this could be something that was made up. And so it does not help the case that he has these text messages long after the fact where he's reaching out to Tyler Perry. So I think it's going to hurt the case that Rodriguez has brought. I think the jury is going to say, this is kind of hard to believe that you never said anything about the harassment earlier.

A (14:57)

Something that jumped out to me, actually, in terms of language as well, across both of the lawsuits, is they include a claim called intentional Infliction of emotional distress. What does this actually mean, Terry?

C (15:11)

You have to show that it was intentional on the part of the defendant that Tyler Perry intentionally caused this emotional distress. And it has to be severe emotional distress and severe actions that were taken against the plaintiff. So it's not. Well, I'm sorry you yelled at me, and now I'm really distressed. You literally have to show that you went to a doctor, that you were treated, and these are the bills, and I had this diagnosis. So it's a. It's a very good claim for a plaintiff to bring, but it is a claim that you have to substantiate.

A (15:51)

We did approach Tyler Perry's lawyers, including Alex Berry. You may recognize his name. He's also Jay Z and Alec Baldwin's lawyer for comment. They didn't get back. But according to Deadline and the LA Times, Alex Sparrow has made a statement. He said, having recently failed in another matter against Mr. Perry, the very same lawyer has now made yet another demand from more than a decade ago, which will also be a failed money grab. Why is he saying having recently failed in another matter against Tyler Perry?

C (16:25)

It's interesting because I think Alex Spiro is playing this out in the media, and he is trying to make it seem as though Jonathan Dischild has lost in the past. Technically, that case against Perry was not lost. I think what he meant is these are losing cases. This lawyer is just looking for people to bring places against Tyler Perry. But I think what Alex Biro is trying to do is to say that this is bogus, that you have an attorney who is just trying to make money off of Tyler Perry. He is looking for plaintiffs. He had a plaintiff with Derek Dixon, and now he has a plaintiff with Mario Rodriguez. If anything else comes up, they're all going to be losing cases, and this is just a money grab. But technically, the Derek Dixon case is alive and thriving in Georgia and the Mario Rodriguez case is now in California. And I think Tyler Perry is going to fight this vigorously.

A (17:25)

And we also approach the lawyer who is representing both of these men for a comment that. Jonathan Delshard. He may sound familiar again. He is also the lawyer for Will Smith's accuser, Brian King. Joseph. You can go back and listen to our program if you want a breakdown of that case. But he's told Fame Under Fire. We believe the text messages explain the story. Perry's legal team has not denied any of the text messages or. Or a relationship with my clients. They are trying to position Dixon's case to be dismissed based on procedural Issues because they are concerned about the substance of the claims and what other evidence will come out. We have a feeling there might be significant other lawsuits that will follow. Of course, Jonathan is entitled to give us a statement, but just to be clear, this is just his opinion. So, Terry, how do you think Tyler Perry can defend himself against these lawsuits?

C (18:24)

I think that both of these cases by Derek Dixon and Mario Rodriguez, the defense is going to be, it didn't happen. That was not what happened when they were in my studio. That is not what happened when they were in my home. I didn't do this. I didn't approach them. And he's going to try to extend explain those text messages. In both cases, I think the Derek Dixon text messages are going to be a little more difficult. And I do think you might see a settlement in that case, the Mario Rodriguez case. Those text messages don't seem, as far as we know right now, as though Tyler Perry is trying to approach Rodriguez in any way or trying to utilize his position to have some sexual favors for Tyler Perry.

A (19:14)

I wondered, in this case, could both of these men appear as corroborating witnesses in each other's trials?

C (19:22)

They could, but I think the judge would probably exclude that unless one of them was a witness physically to seeing what was going on. So the judge has to instruct the jury in these types of cases that you're going to make your decision what happened in this case based on the evidence brought in this case and based on the law in this case. So what might have happened before with Derek Dixon technically isn't going to have an effect on the Mario Rodriguez case. Now, I mean, I expect from an evidentiary standpoint that the judge is going to say, only consider what happened here. But if in fact Derek Dixon was in the same room or in the same studio that Rodriguez was in, that that could be allowed. Obviously, if there are witnesses to the sexual harassment, they heard something, they saw something, they were involved in an incident that will definitely be admitted in court. But so far, based on the allegations and the complaint, I don't see that the two of them cross paths per se. If they did, then that could be very relevant.

A (20:30)

Stepping back from the headlines and the noise for a second, Terry, from a legal perspective, how strong do you think that these lawsuits appear at this stage that we're at now?

C (20:43)

Well, from a legal perspective, I think one is stronger than the other. I think Derek Dixon's lawsuit is a bit stronger than Mario Rodriguez just because it has more substance, more claims, more details. But I do think that Tyler Perry should take both of them very seriously.

A (21:01)

Terry, thank you so much for breaking down all of those lawsuits for us. There's a lot going on and as you say, early stages and seeing how this all may play out. So we'll definitely keep across the story. Thank you so much.

C (21:13)

Thank you. It's been my pleasure being here.

A (21:16)

Okay, so that was New York based attorney, legal analyst Terry Austin breaking down those lawsuits for us. So just a reminder, Tyler Perry's lawyers have said that both of these lawsuits are completely false, that they are, quote, cash grabs and just attempts to extract money from him. Of course, we're going to keep across the story. But as we have seen time and time again here on Fame Under Fire, legal battles, they don't just play out in the courtrooms. They play out in public, in headlines, on social media and in how we understand power. So that is it for this week's episode of Fame Under Fire. With me, amberhat. Make sure you, you subscribe, turn on your push notifications and do not miss an episode.

D (22:05)

If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft turns out to be flawed? In 1999, four apartment buildings were blown up in Russia, Hundreds killed. But 25 years on, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories because these bombs, they're part of the origin story of one of the most powerful men in the world, Vladimir Putin. I'm Helena Merriman and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss? First time round, the history Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen. First on BBC sounds.