Netflix Dismisses Mo’Nique’s Retaliation Claim as “Nonsensical”

THR is reporting that Netflix has said that actress-comedian Mo’Nique has failed to explain why she deserved the same pay for a stand-up special as “mega-stars” like Eddie Murphy and Ellen DeGeneres.

According to the outlet, the streamer filed the motion on Monday.

Recall that the comedian filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the streaming giant in which she claims she was offered only $500,000 for a stand-up special because she’s a black woman.

In her lawsuit, per THR, she:

‘…name-checks a who’s who of comedians and their reported Netflix special offers, including: Jerry Seinfeld ($100 million), Murphy ($60 million-$70 million), Dave Chappelle ($60 million total for three shows), Chris Rock ($40 million total for two shows), DeGeneres ($20 million), Ricky Gervais ($40 million for two shows), Jeff Dunham ($16.5 million), Amy Schumer ($13 million) and Wanda Sykes, although she doesn’t list an amount for Sykes and says she had to fight until the streamer “moved that comma.”

Netflix on Monday filed a scathing motion to dismiss several of her claims.

“[H]er Complaint contradicts its core premise by noting that other persons of color, other women, and another African-American woman (like Plaintiff) have been paid substantially more money to create comedy specials for Netflix’s streaming service than what was offered to Plaintiff,” writes Netflix’s attorney Cynthia Nix-Hines in the complaint. “And Plaintiff fails to explain why she was entitled to be offered what the stars to whom she compares herself were offered for creating such comedy specials.”

Netflix says her claim that the streamer retaliated against her for speaking out on social media fails because she hasn’t offered any facts showing it “engaged in any conduct after she made her complaints.”

“Plaintiff’s retaliation theory is, indeed, nonsensical,” writes Nix-Hines in the motion, which is posted below. “Plaintiff appears to claim that after she made a public call for a boycott based upon an opening offer that Netflix believed was fair, Netflix had an affirmative obligation to increase its offer, without a counteroffer from Plaintiff, and apparently without any limit on the amount of the offer Plaintiff could demand.”

Netflix also argues that the allegations would not only “distract and confuse” a jury but also unnecessarily expand the scope and cost of the matter.

We can’t wait to see how it pans out.

Leave a Reply