This week: Former General Manager of Fantasy Adult Video makes sensational allegations against its owners. Welcome to my now regular blogumn, Breaking The Law, featuring FASCINATING ALLEGATIONS of all kinds. Last week, it was alleged fat discrimination. This week, it’s a $3.7million lawsuit filed against Fantasy Adult Video. Remember: I’m writing about pending litigation that’s not yet been decided in court. We’re talking about allegations, and not facts. But yes, we are also talking about SEX. Which sells! So, on with it…
SUBTLETY: Because it grabs your attention…

Denny O’Neil, Jr., a former general manager of Fantasy Adult Video who worked for them between September 2005 until February 14, 2007, is suing the shop’s parent company, Oregon Entertainment Corporation (OEC), for alleged wrongful discharge, retaliation, creation of a hostile work environment, discrimination and breach of contract.

Sara and Beth Allen, attorneys for O’Neil, are yet to return a call for comment. Nevertheless, O’Neil makes several pretty strong allegations in his suit, (and I cannot stress enough that these are ALLEGATIONS and could all be untrue) removed to Federal Court on November 27, including: regular anonymous sex between patrons and employees in the store’s video booths (paragraphs 8&9—all included, after the jump); that O’Neil was retaliated against for protesting this practice on safety grounds, and told by the business’s owner Tracy Blakeslee that such a policy was “good for business,”; that Blakeslee and his domestic partner and special projects manager Maurice Cooper told him to fire employees whose HIV positive medical condition had progressed to full-blown AIDS, “because those employees were driving up the cost of the employee health insurance plan,” (paragraph 10); that a male employee resigned because he felt he was being harassed by Cooper, but that Blakeslee became angry at O’Neil for reporting the allegation and retaliated against him for it (paragraphs 11-14); that Blakeslee and Cooper exposed O’Neil to a constant barrage of sexual discussion constituting harassment (detailed in paragraphs 15&16); that O’Neil was ultimately terminated on February 14, 2007, with the stated reason being “budgetary cutbacks,” but that shortly after his termination, OEC hired a new employee to do O’Neil’s job.

Bradley Woodworth, attorney for OEC, says: “We are going to vigorously defend the case. We don’t think it has any merit. Our view is that O’Neil was fired for legitimate business reasons—he was not good at his job and was fired. We think this is a sad case of him making things up against his former employers. We have interviewed a number of employees and found not a credible shred of evidence to support any of his allegations.”

The case continues. More sordid alleged specifics after the jump.

O'Neil is referred to as "Plaintiff" in the suit. "Defendant" is Oregon Entertainment Corporation, doing business as Fantasy Adult Video. He is suing for violation of ORS 654 , on occupational safety and health, and for wrongful discharge in violation of federal public policy related to safe employment, for discrimination and retaliation of the civil rights act of 1991, and of ORS 659A on discrimination in employment, for violating state and federal law on hostile work environments, for termination in retaliation for protesting against the alleged practice of anonymous sex between employees and customers, and for termination in violation of public policy concerning the discrimination against individuals with AIDS, not to mention breach of contract for allegedly terminating him because of "budget cutbacks."

Here are the relevant paragraphs in the suit, referred to before the jump:

8. A portion of Defendant's business income comes from operating video display booths where customers may watch adult movies by depositing money into the booth (collectively "the arcade"). It is commonly known by the owners and employees that some patrons have anonymous sex in these video booths in the arcade.

9. On or about November 1, 2005, Plaintiff learned that some employees engaged in anonymous sex with some patrons in the video display booths. Plaintiff complained to Defendant's owner and President, Tracy Blakeslee, that this was dangerous to the health of both customers and employees and that the business should institute a policy against it. Blakeslee was reluctant to institute a policy against such actions because he felt the employees' conduct was "good for business," but eventually allowed a policy to be instituted and put in place on or about January 2006. Blakeslee did not support the policy. Shortly before Plaintiff was terminated, Plaintiff witnessed Blakeslee accompanying a customer to the arcade. Plaintiff indicated his objection to such conduct. Blakeslee stated to Plaintiff that OEC was his business and he would do what he wanted with it. Plaintiff also heard Blakeslee's domestic partner and Defendant's Special Projects manager, Maurice Cooper, express a desire to terminate the employment of employees who complained about other employees having sex with customers.

10. On or about October 24, 2006, Blakeslee and Cooper told Plaintiff to terminate certain employees whose HIV positive medical condition had progressed to full-blown AIDS, because those employees were driving up the cost of the employee health insurance plan. Plaintiff believed this to be both illegal and immoral and kept those employees on staff under the pretext that they were necessary to the function of the business. On February 3, 2007, Blakeslee again complained that those employees were driving up health costs.

11. In late December 2006 or early January 2007, a male employee resigned and complained to his store manager that he was quitting because he felt sexually harassed and objectified at work. When Plaintiff learned of the reason the employee quit, he asked the store manager to investigate. The investigation report revealed that the employee quit because he felt he was being harassed and objectified by Cooper.

12. On or about February 3, 2007, Plaintiff discussed the allegations of the investigation report with Blakeslee. He told Blakeslee that it was imperative to investigate the allegation and to take action if the allegation were found to be true.

13. Defendant's president became angry at Plaintiff for reporting the allegation concerning sexual harassment of the employee as stated in Paragraphs 11 and 12 and for beginning the investigation. He ordered Plaintiff to cease all actions related to the investigation and not to discuss it with anyone.

14. Defendant began berating Plaintiff, excluding Plaintiff from normal management communications, and ultimately terminated him, at least in part, for raising the allegation concerning sexual harassment and instituting the investigation of that allegation.

15. Throughout his employment at Defendant, Blakeslee and Cooper exposed Plaintiff to a constant barrage of sexual discussion beyond that necessary for Plaintiff to undertake his duties managing an "adult" oriented business. This harassment included:

a) discussion of Blakeslee's personal sex life and sexual escapades;
b) discussion of Cooper's personal sex life and sexual escapades;
c) innuendo and veiled propositions directed by Cooper to Plaintiff to engage in sexual relations with Cooper with and without Blakeslee;
d) Cooper's urging plaintiff to use the services of prostitutes;
e) Blakeslee suggested that Plaintiff hire a prostitute and put the cost on Plaintiff's expense report
f) Blakeslee's requiring Plaintiff, while on a business trip to Los Angeles, to accompany Blakeslee while Blakeslee drove to find a prostitute to solicit sex, and;
g) Cooper making suggestions to Plaintiff concerning "waxing" his posterior and getting massages that involved sexual contact.

On or about February 3, 2007, Plaintiff complained to Blakeslee that he specifically wanted Cooper's conduct, as described in this paragraph, to stop.

16.Plaintiff was clear that such discussion and conduct as alleged in the paragraph above was not welcome.