A former employee has filed a lawsuit against the artist, alleging emotional distress arising from his time working with the entertainer. The filing outlines a pattern of workplace conduct and claims that have drawn attention from entertainment press in the United States and Canada, with the case continuing to unfold in a legal setting that could influence future employment practices in high-profile creative environments.
In the document, the plaintiff is identified as having held a senior internal role described as Director of Intelligence. The filing states that private investigators were contracted to monitor the artist’s spouse during a visit to family in Australia, and that information was gathered on members of the Kardashian family amid allegations the artist associated with the family in concerns about human trafficking and sex crimes. The claims describe a climate of surveillance linked to personal and public life, framed as part of an ongoing effort to manage a highly scrutinized public image.
The lawsuit also describes other duties tied to the role, including strategizing ways to keep the artist in front of the media and coordinating searches for lost or stolen items, all within a context of intense public attention and constant media interest. The plaintiff asserts that these tasks were performed under demanding conditions, contributing to a challenging workplace atmosphere shaped by celebrity status and rapid news cycles.
The filing notes that expensive cars were reportedly misplaced and that some payments for services rendered were not fully provided, allegations the plaintiff connects to broader financial and managerial concerns within the enterprise. The document claims the experience took a toll on the plaintiff’s mental health, describing personal strain and stress associated with the duties and environment, alongside assertions of wage nonpayment for work performed under the artist’s direction.
The lawsuit further alleges upheaval within the organization, with most senior leaders said to have been dismissed in May as internal dynamics shifted. It also asserts that the environment deteriorated after the artist began to exhibit behavior described as inappropriate, in a climate the plaintiff characterizes as increasingly chaotic and unstable because of substance use within professional settings.
An August report is cited in the filing, noting a dentist allegedly supplied nitrous oxide for non-medical purposes, a detail the plaintiff presents as part of a broader pattern of conduct affecting the workplace. While the account emphasizes alleged incidents, it remains a matter for court evaluation and independent verification, with the plaintiff seeking remedies through civil proceedings rather than sensational narratives.
The plaintiff, a military veteran, asserts that the actions and conditions described had a meaningful impact on mental health and well-being, along with claims of incomplete or delayed compensation for services performed. The case thus raises questions about how employment arrangements operate in an environment that blends extreme public visibility with complex business dealings, and how such settings are navigated by those who step into leadership or trusted advisory roles.
Earlier media coverage noted another incident outside a courthouse involving a music industry family, highlighting how disputes in celebrity circles can attract persistent attention from the public and press. The current case sits within this broader context of scrutiny and legal considerations, as observers weigh accountability, privacy, and the responsibilities of management in high-pressure creative enterprises.