Allegations Detail Pattern of Misconduct Across Multiple Categories
Amazon MGM Studios has filed a legal response to a lawsuit brought by a former production assistant on the series Criminal, who alleges racial, sexual, and religious harassment by the showrunner. The plaintiff, Ijaaz Noohu, claims he endured a hostile work environment during his time on the show, which is produced for Amazon Prime Video. The studio and other named defendants have moved to dismiss the claims, arguing the allegations lack sufficient legal basis. The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and has drawn attention due to the high-profile nature of the series and the seriousness of the accusations. Amazon MGM stated it takes workplace conduct seriously and is cooperating with the legal process while maintaining its commitment to a safe and inclusive set.
Culture picks
Attack on Titan Returns to Theaters With New Trailer
Nearly 20 Years Later, Producer Teases Possible I Am Legend Sequel
DC Announces Major Alan Moore Swamp Thing Hardcover for Late 2026 Release
Gwyneth Paltrow Explains How She and Chris Martin Prioritized Their Children During Their 2014 SeparationAccording to the lawsuit, Noohu was subjected to repeated derogatory remarks based on his race, religion, and perceived sexual orientation, including slurs and offensive jokes made by the showrunner and tolerated by others in leadership. The complaint describes incidents where he was excluded from meetings, given menial tasks not assigned to peers, and publicly criticized in ways that created a humiliating atmosphere. Noohu says he reported the behavior to human resources but saw no meaningful action, leading him to resign and pursue legal remedies. The suit seeks damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive measures, asserting that Amazon MGM failed to uphold its own anti-discrimination policies despite being aware of the risks.
How Is Amazon MGM Defending Its Position in Court?
In its response, Amazon MGM argues that the plaintiff’s claims are vague, untimely, and fail to demonstrate that the studio had direct control over the alleged conduct or that it ratified such behavior. The studio contends that Noohu did not follow internal reporting procedures correctly and that any workplace issues should be resolved through arbitration, as outlined in his employment agreement. Legal representatives for the defendants maintain that the allegations, while serious, do not meet the threshold for employer liability under California law. They also note that the showrunner is not a direct employee of Amazon MGM but was hired through a third-party production company, complicating the chain of responsibility.
This case adds to growing scrutiny over how major streaming platforms handle misconduct allegations involving creative talent, particularly when shows are produced under complex contractual arrangements. Industry observers note that as content demand increases, so does the risk of inadequate oversight on sets where power imbalances between showrunners and crew can go unchecked. The outcome may influence how studios vet and supervise senior creative personnel, especially in high-visibility projects. Regardless of the court’s decision, the lawsuit underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring equitable and respectful workplaces in an industry where creative freedom is often prioritized over procedural safeguards.
What Are the Broader Implications for Workplace Accountability in Streaming?
Who filed the lawsuit against the Criminal showrunner? Former production assistant Ijaaz Noohu filed the lawsuit, alleging he faced racial, sexual, and religious harassment during his time working on the Amazon Prime Video series Criminal.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Amazon MGM’s main argument in its legal response? The studio argues the claims are legally insufficient, that Noohu did not follow proper reporting channels, and that any disputes should be settled via arbitration per his employment agreement.
Why is the showrunner’s employment status relevant to the case? The showrunner was hired through a third-party production company, not directly by Amazon MGM, which the defendants argue limits the studio’s direct liability for alleged misconduct.
