A second major sexual misconduct lawsuit hit entertainment mogul Tyler Perry in December 2025, marking a critical moment in Hollywood’s #MeToo reckoning. Actor Mario Rodriguez claims Perry subjected him to years of unwanted sexual advances, physical attacks, and sexual battery from 2014 through 2019, with alleged payments of $5,000 following encounters. The $77 million filing came just seven months after Derek Dixon sued Perry for $260 million over similar claims. The account begins with how Rodriguez describes his initial contact.
Second Accuser Files A Stunning $77M Claim
In December 2025, actor Mario Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Tyler Perry, claiming repeated sexual misconduct from 2014 through 2019. The 23-page complaint in California Superior Court outlines allegations of sexual battery, physical attacks, and unwanted advances. Rodriguez is seeking $77 million and also names Lionsgate, citing negligent inaction. This marks the second major lawsuit in seven months, and Perry denies all claims. However, the account of their first contact is unusually detailed.
A Luxury Gym Link Becomes The Opening
Rodriguez says the connection began in 2014 at an Equinox gym in Los Angeles, when a trainer approached, claiming Perry wanted his phone number. The complaint says the intermediary framed it as a casting opportunity, leading to a 2016 appearance in “Boo! A Madea Halloween.” Before any audition, Perry allegedly said, “I’m not a bad person to know and have in your corner.” Why that phrasing mattered becomes central later.
Inside The Alleged 2016 To 2019 Pattern
The complaint describes multiple alleged incidents from 2016 through 2019, often at Perry’s Los Angeles home. Rodriguez says movie invitations turned into unwanted touching, including shoulders, chest, and inner thighs, with alleged sexual noises.
He claims Perry tried to unbuckle his pants, then “reached into his underwear.” Rodriguez says $5,000 cash was placed in his pocket after encounters. Those payments create an obvious question about intent.
Did Cash Payments Signal Control Or Silence?
Rodriguez’s legal team frames the repeated $5,000 payments as financial coercion meant to maintain control after alleged sexual misconduct. The lawsuit argues that the money was not a gesture of generosity but rather a reinforcement of a power imbalance between a billionaire gatekeeper and an aspiring actor.
It also suggests the payments normalized continued access to Rodriguez despite alleged objections. Still, critics point to later messages as complicating the story, and that dispute quickly escalated.
Texts From 2024 And 2025 Enter The Fight
Messages from Thanksgiving 2024 show Rodriguez thanking Perry, saying he appreciated him “to the moon.” In August 2025, Rodriguez messaged about health problems, no insurance, and wrote, “I’m scared, brother,” describing financial desperation.
Perry’s defense cites these texts as inconsistent with abuse claims. Rodriguez’s lawyer, Jonathan Delshad, countered: “Survivors often stay cordial… That does not mean abuse didn’t happen.” Could that dynamic explain years of contact?
Perry’s Lawyer Calls It A “Money Grab Scam”
Perry attorney Alex Spiro said: “I said it before, and I’ll say it again. This is nothing but a 77 million dollar money grab scam.” He added, “Having recently failed in another matter against Mr. Perry, the very same lawyer has now made yet another demand from more than a decade ago, which will also be a failed money grab.” Perry denies all allegations and has not personally addressed specifics. Another lawsuit had already set the backdrop.
The $260M Dixon Case Changed The Terrain
Derek Dixon, an actor on Perry’s BET series The Oval, filed a lawsuit in June 2025 seeking $260 million, claiming improper conduct, physical attacks, and retaliation from 2019 through 2021. Dixon states that Perry invited him to his Georgia home, entered a guest bed, and rubbed his leg, then allegedly said, “Turn around so I can look at you.” Dixon further claims that threats followed. The parallels between the two cases quickly drew attention throughout the entertainment industry.
Claims Of Quid Pro Quo Pressure
Dixon’s complaint alleges Perry promised to produce Dixon’s pilot “Losing It” as leverage for sexual compliance. It says Perry sent explicit messages, including “What’s it going to take for you to have guiltless sex? Have y’all found that in therapy yet?” Dixon claims he stayed cordial, fearing retaliation, including being written off the show.
Christian Keyes Hinted At A Powerful Figure
In December 2023, actor Christian Keyes described ongoing misconduct by an unnamed “Black Hollywood billionaire” during an Instagram Live. Keyes said: “I was subjected to unwanted sexual attention for years, bullied, intimidated, and repeatedly targeted. You get a grown man who knows you’re heterosexual, and you’re sleeping off Hennessy in his guest room.” Keyes also claimed that recordings dating back to 2005 were made using hidden devices. These statements later gained new significance as related legal claims emerged.
Braxton Wells Expanded Claims Beyond Perry Alone
In July 2025, actor Braxton Wells accused Mark E. Swinton, a Senior Vice President at Tyler Perry Studios, alleging he “groomed and raped” him after flying him from Los Angeles to Georgia “under false pretenses.” Wells wrote on Instagram: “You built your empire on the image of a God-fearing man, yet when darkness crept in through your own executive, you chose silence. You retained a predator in your house and helped cover it up, protecting your brand over a broken human life.” The allegations widened the lens to studio responsibility.
A Night Of Drinks And A $6,000 Transfer
Wells said he was served multiple drinks at Marcel in Atlanta, then more at Swinton’s home, claiming he felt “tranquilized” and “paralyzed.” He alleges Swinton took him to a bedroom and sexually violeted him, then sent $6,000 via Apple Pay. Wells wrote: “I was afraid to speak up about this situation for 2 years because I thought I was going to be blackballed from Hollywood.” He also said he reported it to Roswell Police. That timeline intersects with a key legal change.
The Speak Out Act Removed A Common Muzzle
The Speak Out Act of 2022 made NDAs largely unenforceable in disputes involving sexual misconduct. The law states: “Non-disclosure clauses and non-disparagement clauses related to sexual misconduct and/or improper sexual conduct are judicially unenforceable.” It processed unanimously in the House and Senate, limiting a longtime tool used to deter public allegations. Wells’s decision to post publicly despite prior fear of retaliation reflects that shift. However, legal reforms alone do not fully explain why media attention surged in late 2025.
Dixon Went On ABC And Spoke In Plain Terms
In September 2025, Dixon appeared on ABC News and discussed the alleged mistreatment while working on Perry productions. Dixon said: “Everyone deserves to go to work and do their job without their boss trying to mistreat them.” Asked what justice means, he added: “Justice would look like knowing I’ve made a change and that something like this won’t happen to another actor who works for him or anyone else in the industry. That would be justice for me.” The interview broadened attention beyond court filings, and some believe it influenced later decisions to pursue legal action.
A $1.4B Empire Faces Unusual Financial Exposure
Forbes estimated Tyler Perry’s net worth at about $1.4 billion as of October 21, 2024. Perry reportedly owns 100% of his content, concentrating revenue streams and valuable holdings under his control. Rodriguez’s $77 million claim plus Dixon’s $260 million claim totals $337 million, about 24% of that estimate. With real estate and ongoing production income, damages could be collectable if plaintiffs prevail. Yet Rodriguez’s suit also targets a corporate partner, raising a different set of risks.
Why Lionsgate Was Named As A Defendant
Rodriguez’s lawsuit names Lionsgate Entertainment, alleging negligent inaction while distributing “Boo! A Madea Halloween.” Lionsgate’s market capitalization hovered around $1.93 billion as of May 2025, exposing it to reputational harm and legal cost even before liability is decided. Under California law, partners can face claims for negligent failure to protect workers if they knew or should have known of risks. Lionsgate declined substantive comment in December 2025 reports. The co-defendant move hints at a broader accountability strategy beyond one celebrity.
Similar Allegations Across Different Productions
Across filings, alleged misconduct spans different projects and years: Rodriguez ties claims to “Boo! A Madea Halloween” and years 2014 to 2019, while Dixon ties claims to “The Oval” and “Ruthless” from 2019 to 2021. Alleged tactics sound similar: approaching aspiring talent, dangling opportunities, alcohol as a precursor, and money after encounters. Legal observers often say multiple independent accusers describing similar conduct can strengthen pattern arguments at trial. Still, a major tactical choice could shape outcomes more than any headline.
California Venue Could Shift The Legal Math
Rodriguez filed in California Superior Court, invoking FEHA, the Bane Act, and the Ralph Act, statutes often viewed as more plaintiff-friendly than many alternatives. California allows broader pathways for non-economic damages tied to emotional distress and reputational harm. FEHA recognizes two main theories: quid pro quo improper conduct and hostile work environment conduct. Dixon’s case, by contrast, was reportedly moved from California to federal court in Georgia, changing legal standards and jury pools in Perry’s home state. These venue differences can influence leverage long before a jury hears testimony.
What Past Verdicts Suggest About Damages
Comparable cases show wide ranges. Weinstein’s bankruptcy settlement formed a $17 million victims’ fund for multiple accusers. A Los Angeles jury awarded $900 million against Alkiviades David, later reduced to $90 million on appeal. A SkyWest Airlines verdict awarded $2.17 million but was reduced to $300,000 due to statutory caps. Rodriguez’s $77 million demand sits within a landscape where figures can soar, then shrink under legal limits. So what will jurors believe is appropriate when the defendant is a cultural powerhouse?
#MeToo Reforms Helped, Yet Misconduct Persists
Nearly 8 years after October 2017 ignited #MeToo’s modern phase, entertainment has added guardrails: SAG-AFTRA discouraging hotel-room auditions, more intimacy coordinators, leadership shakeups, and reporting hotlines. Yet Women in Film’s 2022 survey found 83% felt culture improved while 80% still experienced misconduct or knew someone who had in the prior 5 years. The Perry lawsuits land in that tension between reform and recurrence. The remaining question is whether lawsuits change behavior faster than policies do.
When Money Threatens Brands, Policies Often Follow
Multiple lawsuits can create incentives that internal memos cannot. If damages or settlements become substantial, distributors and partners may reevaluate working relationships, squeezing revenue and access. Tyler Perry Studios could also face pressure to strengthen HR oversight, reporting pathways, and protections for actors and staff to reduce future exposure. Observers argue accountability only sticks when it hits individuals, institutions, and industry practices simultaneously. That is why these cases are being watched as more than celebrity scandal, especially with a final measure of justice still unsettled.
Justice As A Culture Shift, Not Just A Check
Dixon offered a definition in September 2025: “Justice would look like thinking I’ve made a change and that something like this won’t happen to another actor that works for him or another actor in the industry.” Rodriguez and Dixon seek money damages, but they also force depositions, discovery, and public scrutiny that can reshape workplace norms.
Whether verdicts, settlements, or dismissals follow, the cases test how power, access, and silence operate in modern entertainment. The lasting impact may depend on what happens once the cameras move on.
Sources:
Perry Filed for $77M: Lawsuit States Actor Subjected to Repeated Unwanted Sexual Advances Over Several Years. Los Angeles Times, December 29, 2025
Speak Out Act. Congress.gov, December 7, 2022