David Being Sued For Sexual Harrassment

Ok, I apologize for my earlier comments about this happening on set, I hadn't read the full law suit. It actually didn't all occur on set.

So, the way I read this, had DB gotten this actress a job she wouldn't be suing him?

As far as criminal vs. civil ... if I'm reading the last few parts of the law suit correctly this lady gave up her right to have a criminal investigation because she wanted an immediate "right to sue" judgement. They state that another actress is having DB investigated by the state. I suppose you can't do both. Or rather can't sue someone until an investigation has been completed and the state has determined if you have a case or not. (Think how the people civially suited OJ Simpson and won but only after the criminal trial.) Perhaps this lady either didn't want to wait or didn't think they'd be able to come up with a good enough case and then later would be denied the right to sue.

BevCandyDarling wrote:

empiricist wrote:

BevCandyDarling wrote:I wanted to point something out... My friend just made me see how even funnier this gets.
"Another encounter allegedly occurred with Hagan in David's trailer on September 29"
This comes from the link bug posted, and David was in NYC for Regis when she claims about being in his trailer. She needs to get her story straight.

The episode of Regis you are talking about was aired Sept. 28. Sometimes they are filmed ahead of time. They have a live audience, but sometimes, due to Regis and Kelly's schedule, they will film more than one in a day. It is plausible that it was filmed the week before. Even if he filmed on the 28th, he could have caught a flight to LA, and been at work the next day.

I thought to, but when the photos of him came out walking in NYC Sept 28th, he was still in NYC until the 30th. I remember photos being out. It's why I am going off of that. As well, Oct 5th she said he told her about some rumors to come out, but they didn't come out until 22nd of Oct. She's got her dates wrong. :-)

I would like to see where you are talking about the Sept. 30th dates. I could do research, but I am busy right now. If it is the internet posted dates, sometimes the dates are not the dates the event happened.

As for the rumors, and the dates, I could easily see Star contacting David and his lawyers before they printed. They didn't want to get sued by David. I am sure there was some back and forth between David's Lawyers and Star before the story was printed. That would have taken time. The tabloids are a little more careful about what they print due to the heavy influence of lawyers. That has changed in my lifetime. If you are as old as me, you would remember a time when lawyers didn't get as involved with tabloids. Now they have their own legal department. That is why they have blind vices, etc..

Looking forward to your links to your evidence.

My only question is if DB is the pig that this "person" makes him out to be-why would you watch him?? I mean EW. I'm not sure what to think, I don't know DB, but I just can't imagine him doing that. And if he did, well then I'd really rather not know about it.

I'll just stay in my Bones world where Booth is perfect

David has commented via his rep.


"The allegations concerning any alleged inappropriate conduct by David Boreanaz are totally fabricated and absurd," his rep told E! News. "There is no validity to this lawsuit.

Read more: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

bailey wrote:David has commented via his rep.


"The allegations concerning any alleged inappropriate conduct by David Boreanaz are totally fabricated and absurd," his rep told E! News. "There is no validity to this lawsuit.

Read more: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Finally his rep comes out. I'm so happy to hear it!!

So is she really just suing David because he didn't get her job as an actress?

I just read this on Entertainment Weekly and honestly, I don't believe it. I mean, it's believable that he approached her and asked if she wanted to work more on Bones (because if she had acting potential, wouldn't they want her to strengthen the show?), but all of the harrassment? Really? My main problem with it is that she kept coming back to him, and if you were disgusted by it, you wouldn't go back.

Also, another thing to point out: Remember when all the stuff about his infidelity came out? Right before the FOX upfronts. Now this? Right before Comic-con.

well ye I can't comprehand why she kept going back to said person...only reason I would go back was with a baseball bat

Why, hello Mr. Boreanaz. How interesting to meet you here.

Or, if she wasn't worried about jail time...

Yep. I still think this might all be BS. If she thinks David is such a 'pig,' why did she keep going back to him? And why did she wait a year to file the charges? If a guy said to me that he wanted reveal himself to me like that, I would kick him in the crotch and file a lawsuit right then.

I think at the first attempt I would say something like ''this would all be fun if we're both single and we can fool around all we want but we're not so feck off or I will report you.

atm I have this image of DB's attorney sitting behind a desk with a line in front of it yelling ''NEXT''

jro54 wrote:So is she really just suing David because he didn't get her job as an actress?

In my totally cynical opinion...yes, that's what it boils down to. Now, if she had anyone but Allred as her lawyer, and if that statement about promising an acting job that never came about was not in the legal filing, then I might not be as cynical, but because it was in there, I'd have to say that this is exactly what it's all about...

Like others have said, any self-respecting woman would have him in the family jewels the first time and not have gone back for more....

empiricist wrote:

BevCandyDarling wrote:I wanted to point something out... My friend just made me see how even funnier this gets.
"Another encounter allegedly occurred with Hagan in David's trailer on September 29"
This comes from the link bug posted, and David was in NYC for Regis when she claims about being in his trailer. She needs to get her story straight.

The episode of Regis you are talking about was aired Sept. 28. Sometimes they are filmed ahead of time. They have a live audience, but sometimes, due to Regis and Kelly's schedule, they will film more than one in a day. It is plausible that it was filmed the week before. Even if he filmed on the 28th, he could have caught a flight to LA, and been at work the next day.

Usually the only episodes of Regis that are taped are Fridays if they have no co-host to fill in for Regis or during the summer. I don't think they've ever filmed weeks in advance, maybe just a day or two...usually if both Regis and Kelly are gone at the same time, they will do a "best of" kind of show, where they just record the opening, and then put pieces of previous shows together. So, if the show aired in September, since they would have just come back from any summer vacations, I'd have to guess that that particular show aired live.

crzy4bones wrote:

jro54 wrote:So is she really just suing David because he didn't get her job as an actress?

In my totally cynical opinion...yes, that's what it boils down to. Now, if she had anyone but Allred as her lawyer, and if that statement about promising an acting job that never came about was not in the legal filing, then I might not be as cynical, but because it was in there, I'd have to say that this is exactly what it's all about...

Like others have said, any self-respecting woman would have him in the family jewels the first time and not have gone back for more....

Well, that's stupid. I totally understand if she was suing him because he "revealed" himself too her (which I don't believe is true) but if she's only suing him because he promised her an acting job, but he never pulled through, so now she's making up all those allegations about how he threw himself on her and plans to sue him to the ground, than that's just stupid, in my opinion.

crzy4bones wrote:

empiricist wrote:

BevCandyDarling wrote:I wanted to point something out... My friend just made me see how even funnier this gets.
"Another encounter allegedly occurred with Hagan in David's trailer on September 29"
This comes from the link bug posted, and David was in NYC for Regis when she claims about being in his trailer. She needs to get her story straight.

The episode of Regis you are talking about was aired Sept. 28. Sometimes they are filmed ahead of time. They have a live audience, but sometimes, due to Regis and Kelly's schedule, they will film more than one in a day. It is plausible that it was filmed the week before. Even if he filmed on the 28th, he could have caught a flight to LA, and been at work the next day.

Usually the only episodes of Regis that are taped are Fridays if they have no co-host to fill in for Regis or during the summer. I don't think they've ever filmed weeks in advance, maybe just a day or two...usually if both Regis and Kelly are gone at the same time, they will do a "best of" kind of show, where they just record the opening, and then put pieces of previous shows together. So, if the show aired in September, since they would have just come back from any summer vacations, I'd have to guess that that particular show aired live.

Even if it was taped live it gives him a day to get back. He leaves the 28th and arrives in LA in the evening. Remember LA is three hours behind the east coast. I have flown that flight many times.

jro54 wrote:

crzy4bones wrote:

jro54 wrote:So is she really just suing David because he didn't get her job as an actress?

In my totally cynical opinion...yes, that's what it boils down to. Now, if she had anyone but Allred as her lawyer, and if that statement about promising an acting job that never came about was not in the legal filing, then I might not be as cynical, but because it was in there, I'd have to say that this is exactly what it's all about...

Like others have said, any self-respecting woman would have him in the family jewels the first time and not have gone back for more....

Well, that's stupid. I totally understand if she was suing him because he "revealed" himself too her (which I don't believe is true) but if she's only suing him because he promised her an acting job, but he never pulled through, so now she's making up all those allegations about how he threw himself on her and plans to sue him to the ground, than that's just stupid, in my opinion.

Is his not fulfilling a promise to get her a job on Bones even grounds for her to sue?

Beliskner wrote:it's not criminal??

well it is if it would happen here...but I doubt they will let it go that far..it prob ends with a huge amount of money being payed and we never here from it again. (if it's true)

if not same thing will happen without the money, tho these kinds of suits always damage your image wether it's true or not

You are probably right. It will be settled out of court.

David's spokesman is going to say this is false, (which parts may be exaggerated - I will explain in another post). This will help with his image. The other parties that are being sued, (FOX, Barry Josephson, Hart) may pay but insist on a confidentiality clause. What happens behind the scenes is something we will never know.

I don't know what to make of it. But, his reps saying it's not true doesn't mean crap. IMO. They certainly aren't going to say "yes, it's true" PR's job is to keep their stars out of hot water not tell the public the truth.

I'm still betting this gets settled out of court.

*sigh* Obviously I was not there and do not know the truth either way.... BUT... a few key points for me taken directly from the whole legal filing:

1- Member of Screen Actors Guild since 1995 but no "fame" or major success yet. (So really, someone who's had 15 years to make it and isn't getting "feature" roles may just think it's a much better offer to go for the publicity and possible pay out of a scandal.)

2- He asked her if she was interested in additional work on Bones and she said "no" because she didn't someone else not to have their job. (REALLY?? REALLY?? I call bullsh*t.) -- insert sarcasm here-- It's so refreshing to have a basically unsuccessful actress who wants to be a "feature" actress be willing to TURN DOWN work that would get her screen time. Cause of course she's so famous they are casting her for the next blockbuster opposite George Cluney. [Only admins are allowed to see this image]

3- I had to re-read this to actually get my jaw off the floor... she went with him to 3 SEPARATE PARKING LOCATIONS the first night of "the incident."... then she CAME OUT OF HER HOUSE to go with him again for another "incident" (3 hours first time, 1 1/2 the next)... then she VOLUNTARILY WENT TO HIS TRAILER another time. And if I'm not mistaken, she went to his trailer AFTER it said she was aware by "this point" (the time he allegedly came to her house and they went on nasty-drive-fest #2) that all he wanted was "to have intercourse with her." [Only admins are allowed to see this image] So she knew that was "all he wanted" yet she later "forgot" that she had "figured it out" and went to his trailer? Okay, sure.

4- And drumroll please... last but not least... one of the closing points in section 22 ... and still the "DEFENDANT FAILED TO HIRE" her... [Only admins are allowed to see this image] Do we perhaps come to real reason for the filing?

Happen or not? Partially happen/ partially lies? After reading that kind of crap I don't even care. I look at it like this:
-- If it is NOT true- then that's a nasty thing for her to do to someone
-- If is IS true- she still would come across as someone willing to trade sex for favors (career) and just pissed cause she didn't get what she was willing to prostitute herself for at the get go. And of course if it is true DB is wrong etc... (same discussion as the infedelity threads a few months back, and may actually BE the same exact issue/person here for all we know)... but I'm not really talking about the moral "sex" or "no sex" issue for him or her... but about how ridiculous and money grabbing the whole filing sounds. All. About. Money. So an out of court settlement to make it "go away" is probably what they want! Pretty sad cause it seemed (based only on the filing) that even if this event DID occur, she was playing the game too.

Just my 2 cents! (Or maybe 10cents since I kinda rambled on! [Only admins are allowed to see this image] )

jro54 wrote:I just have two question...If this supposedly happen a year ago, then why is this girl just filing the suit right now? And who what want to watch any man masterbate?

There are women who like to watch Just as some men like to watch women. I am not referring to porn.

HermioneGirl101 wrote:

jro54 wrote:

crzy4bones wrote:

jro54 wrote:So is she really just suing David because he didn't get her job as an actress?

In my totally cynical opinion...yes, that's what it boils down to. Now, if she had anyone but Allred as her lawyer, and if that statement about promising an acting job that never came about was not in the legal filing, then I might not be as cynical, but because it was in there, I'd have to say that this is exactly what it's all about...

Like others have said, any self-respecting woman would have him in the family jewels the first time and not have gone back for more....

Well, that's stupid. I totally understand if she was suing him because he "revealed" himself too her (which I don't believe is true) but if she's only suing him because he promised her an acting job, but he never pulled through, so now she's making up all those allegations about how he threw himself on her and plans to sue him to the ground, than that's just stupid, in my opinion.

Is his not fulfilling a promise to get her a job on Bones even grounds for her to sue?

The reasoning is that he acted inappropriately to someone that could be considered a subordinate. He wanted sexual favors for his promise of a job. At least that is the way she is spinning it.

Many of you would have handled the situation like I would have, but there ARE WOMEN THAT WILL PLAY THE GAME WITH A GUY THAT IS ACTING INAPPROPRIATELY IF THEY THINK THEY CAN GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT. I witnessed it in the military with their rank system. It has changed. (PLEASE SOMEONE DO SOME RESEARCH ON TAILHOOK). The military wasn't always so "sensitive".

My point is: Men WILL ACT THAT WAY. Witnessed it!!!
Women will take advantage of it, and /or cry foul when they don't get what they want.

Before you lambast me, how many of you are guys? Most of us on this board are die hard romantics. That is why we watch Bones and aren't on the Playboy or porn channel. We can't imagine the mindset of someone that uses their sexuality inappropriately, or the women that try to play along or cry foul when they don't get what they want.

Hey, the economy is rough.

i dont know if i can believe this claim because who would push away DB? lol just kidding.

But I hope that this blows over. It's horrible if it is true, but I remain skeptical. My heart is with his family. This is not what they need.

I'm kind of thinking this might be a valid lawsuit. I don't think that people necessarily realize that their behavior is harassing and I don't think that most people who get harassed realize their rights.

I read over the court document and the allegations are pretty precise. Even if she was complicit and agreed to go on these drives etc with David doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill for harassment.

That being said she could be off her rocker, however David has had numerous affairs...

This is going to end in an out of court settlement of undisclosed sums.

Also - pulled the below quote from wiki. You can see sexual harassment is very broad in what it could be.

[Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

For the women posters on the board (and hey I guess I shouldn't exclude the guys) can you honestly say you haven't had grounds to charge someone with harassment before?

I guess the problem with cases like this (i'm speaking in general) is that it's mostly opinions.

Take this whole thing for example. She willingly went with him. Several times. She gave him her info (thought not for sexual purposes) AND replied to the texts he sent. Yes, she was doing it for a job and yes, that's no right for a man to treat treat you badly. BUT, to him....she was a willing participant. What I mean is, in his mind...she was playing a game of cat and mouse.

It's pretty simple. If a guy is sending you dirty texts and you are sending them right back....a guy is gonna think a certain way. I've been there, done that. Getting in a car with him isn't going to change his mind, either.

DB may have done some of it, but he could very well have taken her as a VERY willing participant. In his mind, he didn't sexually harass her and in her mind, he did.

Some women may feel burned and then just go and scream sexual harassment when they are unhappy with the outcome. It's a shame, because it makes it look bad on the rest of us when there is a legit case.

I'm pretty certain that either way, we will never know the truth.

djackio wrote:I'm kind of thinking this might be a valid lawsuit. I don't think that people necessarily realize that their behavior is harassing and I don't think that most people who get harassed realize their rights.

I read over the court document and the allegations are pretty precise. Even if she was complicit and agreed to go on these drives etc with David doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill for harassment.

That being said she could be off her rocker, however David has had numerous affairs...

This is going to end in an out of court settlement of undisclosed sums.

Also - pulled the below quote from wiki. You can see sexual harassment is very broad in what it could be.

[Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

For the women posters on the board (and hey I guess I shouldn't exclude the guys) can you honestly say you haven't had grounds to charge someone with harassment before?

You make a good point. A lot of people don't even know what it is even when it's happening to them. A lot just think it's normal and something you have to deal with. It happens to guys to. They paid a lot of attention to this in the 90's after that tail hook thing. I remember there being like.....daytime specials on it and commercials.

Who knows. This woman could just be a victim who went with it to get work and now realizes she shouldn't have done that. If that's the way it is, I feel badly that she hired Gloria because no one is taking her seriously now and if it honestly happened i feel for her. I also feel for DB whether it's true or not because it's clear he had contact with the woman. He took that picture. He seems to get himself into these situations. He brings it on himself. Stay away from all women but your wife and co-stars (the ones he HAS to work with every day) and perhaps you will no longer be open season on DB.