Paul Oakenfold sued over alleged sexual harassment
DJ Paul Oakenfold is being sued for sexual harassment after allegedly repeatedly masturbating in front of his personal assistant.
Paul Oakenfold is being sued by a former personal assistant, who claimed he repeatedly masturbated in front of her.
The 59-year-old DJ is the subject of a lawsuit from a 24-year-old woman identified only as Jane Roe, who accused the 'Swordfish' soundtrack composer of sexual harassment and workplace violations.
In court documents filed in Los Angeles on Friday (02.06.23) and obtained by Deadline, the accuser alleged two companies run by CEO Paul Stepanek — New Frequency Management and Stepanek Management– Oakenfold, and various unnamed men violated her employment rights, and she is seeking damages of over $25,000.
The woman explained she took a job at the management companies in October 2022 and was assigned to be the Grammy-nominated DJ's personal assistant for $20 an hour, working out of his home.
She alleged that one her first day and on three other separate dates, Oakenfold exposed himself and masturbated in front of her, doing so four times in one single day.
The accuser told how she "froze in fear and shock" as a result of the DJ's alleged behaviour, and told how on one occasion, as she drove him home from the post office, the musician allegedly sat in the passenger seat of her car and “spread his legs wide, and proceeded to masturbate with Plaintiff only inches away”.
Roe reportedly “froze in fear and shock” as a result of the older man’s alleged indecent exposure.
Jane reported what had happened to the management and claimed she was presented with a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and stopped from returning to work when she refused to sign it. The woman - who claimed she was threatened with dismissal - eventually signed the document "under duress" and was allowed to return to work, but was assigned away from the DJ.
But the plaintiff claimed her hours were reduced and she was eventually let go in March 2023 due to a "lack of work".
The lawsuit stated: "Defendants terminated Plaintiff not for any legitimate reason, but in retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints about the aforementioned sexual harassment, in violation of the law."