Will Smith Scores Major Victory in Sex Harassment Case

Big news for Will Smith. A judge. basically just threw out all of these. claims and a lot of allegations that he. was facing in a sexual harassment. lawsuit. But, I will tell you, you may. not want to roll the credits on this one. just yet [music] because this may not. actually be over. The judge who ruled. did something else, something [music]. that could maybe bring this case back to. life. We have the ruling. We're going to. do a legal breakdown [music]. and we're going to talk about it right. now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by. Law & Crime, I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, big news, huge news in the case. against actor Will Smith. I've talked. about this case before. We focused on. this case before. And now it appears the. actor, as of right now, is emerging. victorious from his legal fight. I say. at least for now. Remember, Smith was. hit with a sexual harassment and. retaliation lawsuit brought against him. by a former, or his former, violinist on.

his tour accusing the actor and his team. of creating a dangerous and hostile work. environment. Now, a judge has. essentially thrown out all of the claims. and a lot of language from the suit. But, I will tell you this isn't over. just yet because the plaintiff in this. case, this violinist, Brian King Joseph, has 30 days to refile this case. Meaning, Will Smith's troubles may not. be behind him just yet. So, 30 days to. come back, stronger case, what does it. mean? What will he do? Look, we've got.

the ruling. We know what the judge. actually said. So, we're going to break. down exactly what happened here and what. we can expect. Now, if you recall, as. we've talked about on previous sidebars, Brian King Joseph is a professional. violinist. Apparently, appeared on. season 13 of America's Got Talent, made. it to the top three. Late 2024, he was. hired to perform on Will Smith's Based. on a True Story Tour the following year. And according to the lawsuit that It. filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in. December of 2025, things took a turn. during the Las Vegas leg of that tour.

Because Joseph claims that he left his. bag with his room key in a crew van. And management told him they couldn't. find it, and then later returned it to. him. And that night, he says he goes. back to his hotel room and found. evidence that someone had been inside. That there was a handwritten note. addressed to him that read, quote, "Brian, I'll be back no later 5:30 just. us with a heart sign stone F." And also. in the room, apparently according to.

him, wipes, a beer bottle, a red. backpack, HIV medication with someone. else's name, an earring, hospital. discharge paperwork. And Joseph says he, quote, "feared that an unknown. individual would return soon to his room. to engage in sexual acts with him." So, he apparently reported the incident to. hotel security and to Smith's tour. management. He even says he called the. local non-emergency police line to. report this. But, speaking out allegedly. backfired severely for him. He says he. was fired soon after this and that the.

tour then hired another violinist to. replace him. So, Joseph filed six claims. against Smith and his management. company, including sexual harassment, retaliation for reporting harassment, wrongful termination in violation of. public policy, violation of California's. labor and civil rights laws. And then. there were other allegations in the suit. that went beyond the hotel room. Because. Joseph claimed that Will Smith himself. had been laying the groundwork for. something darker. And here is where the. lawsuit tried to tie this back to Smith. personally. Because according to the.

complaint, months before this alleged. hotel room incident, Smith had been. pulling Joseph closer. Smith allegedly. told him, quote, "You and I have such a. special connection that I don't have. with anyone else." The two allegedly. spent time together. Smith invited. Joseph to play on his tracks. Joseph. believed he was being brought into Will. Smith's inner circle. And the lawsuit. alleged that Smith's behavior amounted. to quote deliberately grooming and. priming Mr. Joseph for further sexual.

exploitation. And that the sequence of. events pointed to a quote pattern of. predatory behavior rather than an. isolated incident. So when Joseph. apparently found this note in those. items in his hotel room, he said it. wasn't random. He saw it as connected to. Smith. And the lawsuit alleged that. someone with access to his hotel room, and he claims that only people with. access were Smith's management team, left that note. And the note, combined with Smith's. earlier comments about a special. connection, led Joseph to believe that.

he was being groomed for something. sexual. That's the main allegation. And. by the way, we had Joseph's attorney. Jonathan Del Shad on Sidebar, on this. program, back in January. I asked him. directly how we planned to connect the. hotel room incident to Will Smith. This. is what he told me. That's the critical question in this in. tying it back, meaning can we tie that. back to Will Smith? But I think that. there's a second option as well. That's. just for the sexual harassment part of. it. For the reporting, you know, clearly. it got back to Will Smith. I mean, that. that the reporting was reported to the.

the the the tour manager, the right-hand. man. When something just doesn't make. sense, when you're like looking at a you. know, typically. when an employee is hired to do a job. and they're doing it well, the employer's happy with that employee. and they want to continue employing. them. They're making money off of them. And so, at a certain point if they if. something happens and they just for for. weird reasons let go of the employee, you got to look back at the employer and. say, is that the real reason they're. doing this? Is there something else.

going on here? That was then. Now, a. judge has ruled on whether the lawsuit. actually stated valid legal claims. And. we're going to get to that in just a. moment. But, Will Smith and his company, by the way, have denied everything. One. of his attorneys, Alan Grodsky, issued a. statement to people previously saying. Mr. Joseph's allegations concerning my. client are false, baseless, and. reckless. They are categorically denied, and we will use all legal means. available to address these claims and to. ensure that the truth is brought to. light. So, that is where things stood.

Joseph making serious allegations, Smith. denying everything, and then a judge. stepped in. May 5th, Los Angeles County. Superior Court Judge Michael Schultz. issued this ruling. And here's what you. need to know up front. The judge. basically sided with Will Smith on. almost everything. Every single claim. that Joseph brought was thrown out. But, here's why this is not, you know, a. clean knockout. Because the judge gave. Joseph 30 days to amend his complaint. and refile. And that is the clock we're.

now watching. So, the ruling is quite. detailed. The judge sustained what is. called a demurrer. So, that's a legal. move where the defendant argues that. even if everything the plaintiff says is. true, court accepted all is true, there's still no valid legal claim. There's no case here. And the judge. seemingly agreed. And he also, by the. way, granted a motion to strike specific. language from the complaint, too. So, that included the allegation that Will. Smith was deliberately grooming Joseph,

and the claim that there was a pattern. of predatory behavior. So, those are. strong words. That's a strong decision. And the judge said they had no relevance. to the actual legal claims and called. them gratuitous. But, here is where it gets interesting. for Joseph. Because the judge didn't say. that the hotel room incident didn't. happen. He didn't say it's a lie. He. didn't say it's a misrepresentation. No, he said, "Taking it all as true, just. the legal pleading was insufficient.". And in one key line, the judge wrote. that it was, quote, "Not unreasonable to.

infer that the note, together with the. other items left in plaintiff's room, reflected an intent to engage in sexual. conduct." That's important because the. judge acknowledged, "Look, a jury could. reasonably see the note as sexual in. nature, and that's something that. Joseph's attorneys can hang on to. The. problem for Joseph was everything else. The judge ruled that one incident was. not enough to create a hostile work. environment under California law. He. wrote that the allegations didn't show a. severe and pervasive pattern of.

harassment. Joseph reported the. incident, got a new room, flew back to. Los Angeles the next day, and this. seemed to undercut the claim that his. working conditions were unsustainable, unbearable. But it's also the idea of if. you take that incident as true, does it represent a repeated pattern? Is. it such a severe incident like you. equate it to I think a classic example. would be if. you know, you're you're at your office. and you there's no pattern of sexual. harassment, but somebody comes over and.

grabs you from behind, that would be so. severe, even though it's an isolated. incident, that it could categorize as. sexual harassment. And the judge also. took issue with the retaliation claim A. because of the problems with. establishing sexual harassment or a. hostile work environment, but also made. the claim look that this intrusion was. at a hotel, not the workplace. But. another big issue, and was kind of a big. theme throughout the course of this. ruling, is the judge said there seemed. to be a lack of connective tissue, that. there wasn't an allegation connecting.

this intrusion or this intruder or. intruders to Will Smith or his. management team. And that is the hole in the case cuz. like the note that was signed Stone F, the complaint never alleged who that was. or how that person was connected to Will. Smith, according to the court. And. without that link, the judge said there. there's a problem with the case. So now. Joseph has 30 days to fill that hole. Can he do it? That's the question. Let's. talk about it. Okay, so to answer all. that, we're bringing in somebody who. handles these kinds of cases every day.

By the way, I think he knows this judge. Ron Zambrano is an employment attorney. who represents victims of workplace. discrimination, retaliation. He has. settled millions of dollars in claims. for employees. Ron, always good to see. you. Thanks for taking the time. So, first of all, you know this judge? Yes, so Judge Schultz, I have a case I'm. actually going to go to trial in front. of him. in June. I Be careful what you say. Be. careful what you say. No, I you know, I have a lot of respect. for him. and he yeah, he was he he he is a.

no-nonsense guy. He takes his job very. seriously in applying the law. So, once. I saw his name and I saw I could I could. just see in my head him talking, you. know, to the to the plaintiff's attorney. going like, "Listen, well, we can get. into it." But yes, I I do know this. judge. He's a very good judge. I'm not. saying that because he's going to be. presiding over my trial with County of. LA soon, but I think he's a very fair. judge. Yes. Were you surprised by this ruling? And. to be clear, when we talk about a. demurrer like this, it's a slightly. different than a complete motion to. dismiss, right? So, talk to me about.

what your reactions were to this. So, initially again, like anything else, when I heard about this case, the. allegations were so salacious, I really didn't get into I didn't read. the complaint. But when I saw that it. was that there was an initial sustaining. of the demurrer, which is just an. attack, you know, the judge has to. assume everything in the in the. complaint is true. Right. Everything in. the complaint is true and does it fit, you know, does it check all the legal. boxes? So, I was very surprised, so I. looked into it. I'm like, "Oh, there's. nothing connecting what is.

gross, right, the the note and what. happened, but there's nothing connecting. that to Will Smith.". And again, the judge is being very fair. He's like, "Give me something." He's. giving him a shot, which is very normal, right? A demurrer can be sustained, which is a ruling that the that the. allegations in the complaint aren't. sufficient legally, but he's going to. give him a shot to. amend, add more facts to try to cure. this. And the curious thing is that. these are such serious missing factual. allegations,

if they're all of a sudden there, there's going to be questions like, why. wouldn't why wouldn't you say that from. the beginning? Well, that that's a fair. question. Why not include that in the. initial pleading? Because yes, complaints don't have to include. everything. They don't have to include. every email or text message, but they. have to be sufficient. They have to. have, you know, pass that bar that that. it's stating a viable legal claim. And. so, for example, where the judge wrote. that there was no allegation connecting.

this intruder of the hotel room to Will. Smith or his management team, the judge. said the note left in plaintiff's hotel. room was signed Stone F, and there's no. allegation that this person is connected. to the crew or cast or any other agent. or employee of defendants. And he also. wrote that the complaint does not allege. that the intrusion was perpetrated by a. contractor employee or by the employer. I guess my question to you is two. things. One, giving now Joseph side an. opportunity to allege more facts or or.

evidence to make that connective tissue, but B, couldn't an argument be, well, it's upon information and belief. We are. waiting to go forward with this trial. We're waiting for discovery, and then. we'll have an opportunity to fully. explore this and fully prove this. This. is just based on circumstances right. now. We're we're alleging the bare. minimum to go forward. What do you. think? Well, you're using very usual legal. language with the information and belief.

qualifier. But and and listen, they may amend it. just to keep it alive and go, "Okay, on. information and belief, Will Smith or the production company is. connected to this conduct." And and then. and they can go, "Listen, judge, you. asked for these allegations. We put them. in there they're there.". Because no matter what, it's going to be. attacked again. It's going to be. attacked again with a second demur to. the first to the amended complaint. Um. but the swing is that this will be. heavily litigated because.

celebrities that get sued don't settle, especially if they really sense that. there's weaknesses from the beginning. This is not a good start for uh the. plaintiff. This is it's not. Like for. for it to be. um so without real connection from the. beginning because. you should know from the front when you. when you file this is it's going to get. media attention. The person you're suing is powerful. They're going to get attorneys that are. somewhat competent and this is a very. easy thing to avoid and they didn't. Now. they're here. Judge Schultz said there's. not enough here. Why isn't it there in.

the first place? So they may try to. lawyer it up and go, "Well, we'll make. these information and belief and so that. we can maybe find it in discovery.". But this is picking a fight that really. it should never have been brought. It should have been brought It should. have been cured from beginning or. avoided. And the risk is. getting past the technical barrier, but then it's going to be a dog eat dog. fight in discovery. It's just going to. be. One of the things that I thought was.

really interesting is how do you define. sexual harassment? And the judge wrote. here that Joseph failed to allege that. this conduct was severe or pervasive. enough to create essentially an abusive. working environment. Um again, assuming. all these allegations are true, right? He specifically wrote that a sexually. objectionable environment must be both. objectively and subjectively offensive. and that isolated incidents, unless.

extremely serious, will not amount to. discriminatory changes in the terms and. conditions of employment. Explain that. to us. Right. So um to bring a claim, any. plaintiff has to do has to. allege or make the conduct fit into. either pervasive or severe. It doesn't. have to be both. This is misconception. has to be be both really bad and happen. all the time. It's either something that. doesn't happen all the time, but it's. really severe. Sexual assault, grabbing, really gross, you know, the.

explicit pictures and text messages. People still do that. That's how I still. have a business. That's really severe, right? Objectionable. But here it's not really. doesn't fit into those normal. categories. So. here the judge is like, "Listen, okay, fine. This may seem um. really bad and salacious. Well, not. really salacious, but like it's such. terrible conduct, but it's not connected. to a sex or sexual act. That's problem.

number one. The second problem is is. that there is no um. it's not happening over and over again, right? So something really really bad. connected to sex, explicit pictures, um. you know, terrible words that I won't. repeat here, or physical touching. You. could That can happen once and make it. Or if it's something less so, for. instance, you come into work a female. comes into work and she keeps and the. boss keeps going, "I like your dress. You look really nice. I like your. perfume.". Those things in isolation won't make it,

but over the course of a month, 2. months, 3 months, 4 months, maybe. That's the pervasive. So here it didn't. fit either and I think the judge again. Judge Schultz, I think he's being very. clinical in his application of the law. and going, "Yeah, this is a bad story. It has nothing to do with sex. It wasn't. pervasive. So it's not enough. You need. to give me Well, not give me, but if you. want to continue with this, you need. additional facts that are either severe. in in in maybe not in that category, but. something along that category, or.

something that happened over and over. and over again. I don't think we're. going to get to I don't I personally. don't think based on just what was. initially put in there that we're going. to get the something that's frequently. happening. Again, and it all has to be. connected to sex. Mhm. Let me talk about something that might. help the plaintiff's case because here's. where it appears the judge gave Joseph. something to work with. He wrote that it. was not unreasonable to infer that the. note, together with other items left in. plaintiff's room, reflected an intent to.

engage in sexual conduct, opening it up. to the possibility this could be. something, right? It is It's not like. you can just ignore it. I mean, if. allegedly he's at a not neces- like not. in an office, but a room, it's on tour. It's in a workplace kind of environment, little bit and little bit not. Um but it. is there's at least a basis by which the. plaintiff can expand upon this, right? Yeah, there's a basis of which there's I. like to say bones, right? That the case. has good bones on which to put more meat.

on the bone. And then And the judge said. there's not enough meat on the bone to. hit the minimum standard of the legal. um of the legal elements that need to be. checked off. So, these things in isol-. Again, all these things in isolation. aren't enough. You have to plead and. make your narrative in writing so that. everything is connected. But then also. you have to connect things to both uh. either the production company or Will. Smith as an individual. And then it has. to be connected to sex. Has to be.

connected to sex. If It can't be like. this is really bad in the beginning. about sex and then we're going to make. all these things just to talk bad about. Will Smith or the company, but that. doesn't have to do with it. about sex. That's not enough, right? It's just It's This isn't a judgment of. people's character. It's a judgment on. unlawful conduct. And if if the unlawful. conduct is only, you know, the first. paragraph, that's all the judge is going. to care about. >> Right. I also thought it was interesting. how he struck the language of grooming. and predatory behavior like this. by by allegedly Will Smith. Basically. said that it has no connection to any.

any of the allegations that you're. asserting, any of the claims. It's It's. coming out of nowhere. Why do you think. a plaintiff lawyer. the plaintiff would include that in. there? Because it will get the press. I mean. I'm I don't mean to be flippant, but. like that language will get you media. attention. It will get the attention of. outlets. It will. It's inflammatory, right? But the thing. is that is Those allegations are are. conclusory.

What the judge cares about and what if. you go to a jury with the jury will care. about is, "Okay, I know you feel that. this happened. This is the conclusion. that you. are coming to, but what is the thing. that happened that. made you make that conclusion?" That's. the facts that lead to that conclusion, that that label, you know, predatory. behavior. That is what the judge is. asking like, "Where's the proof in this. pudding?" Right? At least. from your own allegations. And the judge. is saying,

"This is basically just This is. conclusory legal language. I don't think. it's even legal language. It's just a. conclusory language that's not supported. by the underlying facts. If you have support in the underlying. facts, then maybe I will leave it leave. that term or that phrase in there." So. while he struck that language, the judge. didn't strike Joseph's claim with the. language that he feared someone would. return to engage in sexual acts with. him. Um There he didn't strike the little. paragraphs about the note itself or the. items left in the room, which we we you. know we were talking about. So if you. are Joseph's attorney and you are.

reading this ruling, what are you going. to do in the next 30 days? And by the. way, just to let everybody know, we. reached out to both sides for comment. So Jonathan Del Shad, uh again, Joseph's. attorney, told us he's not going to be. speaking right now, said his team will. put out a statement. As of the time of. this recording, we haven't received. that. Um so but Del Shad told us they're. going to try to get back on track. We. also reached out to Will Smith's team. We haven't heard back. What do you do as. his legal team? You have a call with a client or you.

have a meeting with a client um and you. go over what has been. basically spoon-fed to you from the. judges what's deficient and ask the. client, do you have facts. to meet the standard of the judges. asking us us as a team to put on this. complaint. And you have to find it. And if it's not. there, then then you have to have a. different conversation with your client. But that's what you do. You you have to. have a sit-down conversation, hopefully. preferably in person,

and you go, "Listen, there's this. ruling. It's It This is not a mystery. The judge is not hiding the ball. We're. being told what is insufficient. Now. give, you know, what what can you tell. us from your first-hand experience, not. your conclusions, first-hand experience, that may fit these categories that we. are being told are not being met from a. legal standpoint to raise a claim under. the Fair Employment and Housing Act for. hostile work environment based on sex?". Ron, interesting things to think about. Thank. you so much for taking the time. Appreciate it.

Of course. And that's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us. And as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's. Peacock as well. If you want to follow. me, X, Instagram, [music] my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber LIVE, 11:00 p.m. Eastern, Monday through Friday. I'll see. you [music] next time, everybody.