Defamation, Abuse & Negligent Retention: The Life of Pop Stars

Pop star Kesha and songwriter-producer Lukasz Gottwald, aka Dr. Luke, are squaring off for a major lawsuit that includes allegations of rape, abuse, defamation and more. Each party has filed an extremely aggressive case against the other. We’ll discuss each case, but first we should define the trickier allegations.

We’ll go into detail about the rest of the allegations shortly, but for the purposes of understanding the claims being made by each party, it should be noted that Kesha is claiming sexual assault and battery, negligent retention and supervision, sexual harassment, emotional distress and other violations. Gottwald is retaliating with defamation, breach of contract and tortious interference.

Negligent retention and supervision

Most of Kesha’s allegations against Gottwald are pretty straightforward, despite the seriousness of their nature. Negligent retention and supervision is likely the only one that the average person won’t be familiar with.

These are actually two separate, but related, tort offenses. Negligent retention refers to a situation in which a party fails to remove an employee from a position of responsibility or authority after it has come to light that he or she is misusing that authority. Similarly, negligent supervision occurs when a party should have more closely monitored a situation, but failed to, resulting in the same misuse of authority.

Many suits, like Kesha’s, will put both theories forward. In this case, it appears likely that Kesha is claiming that Dr. Luke’s companies or supervisors either knew about his alleged injurious behavior and failed to act or should have known about it.

Defamation

For his part, Gottwald’s counterclaims rest almost entirely on the falseness of Kesha’s rape and abuse allegations. To establish defamation, four elements must generally be proven:

1. The existence of a false statement purporting to be fact about another person
2. The publication or communication of that statement to a third person
3. Intent to harm, or at least negligence, by the person making the statement
4. Resultant harm to the subject of the statement

Tortious interference

Gottwald’s argument that Kesha is in breach of contract is also fairly straightforward, but his claim of tortious interference is more interesting. This law is reserved for third parties who cause damage via interference with a plaintiff’s contractual or business relationships.

This is rather specific. In a famous English case involving the same law, Tarleton v McGawley​, the defendant was found guilty of tortious interference for shooting from his ship off the coast of Africa at natives who were traveling to trade with the plaintiff in order to deter them.

The claim of tortious interference is directed at Pebe Sebert, Kesha’s mother; Vector, Kesha’s new managing company; and Jack Rovner, the president of Vector. In effect, the lawsuit suggests that the previously mentioned worked to damage the working relationship between Gottwald and Kesha.

Kesha’s case

Kesha’s complaint paints an extremely dark picture of her time with Gottwald. It alleges that he induced her to drop out of high school before focusing on the careers of more famous artists. There are several stories regarding Gottwald’s alleged lewd and inappropriate sexual conduct toward other parties that, while apparently unrelated to the case, are extremely disturbing.

Two specific cases of sexual misconduct toward Kesha stand out. First, the complaint describes how Gottwald allegedly forced her to inhale drugs before a flight, on which he repeatedly attempted to force himself on her despite her clear intoxication. Second, it describes a situation in which he allegedly forced Kesha to drink with him before giving her “sober pills.” Kesha describes waking up naked in Gottwald’s bed the next day and calling her mother. The complaint also states that Kesha later discovered that the pills were a variant of the “date rape” drug GHB.

There are also evocative descriptions of physical and psychological abuse, which the complaint claims Gottwald used to control Kesha and her career. It seeks special, general, punitive and exemplary damages, declaratory relief voiding Kesha’s contract with Gottwald and his companies and costs.

Gottwald’s case

If Kesha’s case seems aggressive, Gottwald’s is equally so. It paints a picture of Gottwald as having devoted significant time and money into Kesha’s career and suggests that Kesha and her mother Pebe are financially motivated in their claims.

“These defamatory statements contain lurid allegations of physical and mental abuse of Kesha – allegations that Kesha and Pebe have themselves admitted are false,” the complaint reads. Emphasis present in original, no less.

Interestingly, Kesha’s case contains direct language that states that Gottwald refused to renegotiate Kesha’s contract. In Gottwald’s complaint, however, there are multiple amendments to the contract mentioned.

The complaint also states that Pebe has communicated threats to Gottwald and his representatives, promising to publish further accusations of a similar nature should he refuse to make business concessions and release Kesha from the contract. He seeks special, punitive and compensatory damages and costs.

Cases like this one can only be described as incendiary. It is difficult for anyone who reads the case not to take a side, but it bears noting that we have seen no evidence of either parties’ claims so far. Clearly, one side is lying. In my professional opinion, it is essential to remain prudent and watch the proceedings objectively before reaching a conclusion.

As an entertainment attorney in New York, I’ve noticed that many pop stars find themselves in legal battles over defamation. Check out some of my previous posts on some of the most popular stars in the sports and entertainment world and their legal bouts regarding defamation:

• Rihanna Sued for Defamation by Former Bodyguard
• Brian McNamee’s Defamation Lawsuit Involving Steroids Against Roger Clemens May Go To Trial
• “The Wolf of Wall Street” Filmmakers Sued for Defamation
• Defamation a Major Concern for Celebrities