Bre Selling Sunset Lawsuit, $12.75M Workplace Harassment Case & Shocking LGBTQ Discrimination Claims Exposed

Selling Sunset star Bre Tiesi faces a $12.75 million lawsuit filed by three former employees alleging workplace harassment, discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, threats of physical violence, and California Labor Code violations. In July 2024, Tiesi filed a motion to dismiss the case, denying all allegations and claiming her conduct was “privileged, justified, and permissible under California law”. The case remains active as cast members distance themselves after viewing alleged text message evidence, threatening Tiesi’s reality TV career and professional reputation.

Multiple legal violations expose systematic workplace toxicity allegations against the Netflix reality star. Former employees claim months of enduring homophobic slurs, violent threats, and labor law violations before being “unjustly fired.”

The $12.75 Million Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit

Lucy Poole (former nanny), Amanda Bustard (social media manager), and Kenneth Gomez (personal assistant and stylist) filed the lawsuit on April 25, 2024, in Los Angeles Superior Court, each seeking $4,250,000 in damages.

The plaintiffs break down their demands as follows:

Damages Breakdown Per Plaintiff:

$1 million minimum for financial losses
$2 million for compensatory damages
$250,000 for statutory damages
$250,000 for restitutionary damages
$250,000 for civil penalties and liquidated damages under California Labor Code

Allegations of Violent Threats and Verbal Abuse

Amanda Bustard alleged she witnessed Tiesi “scream” at employees and threaten them with physical violence, including statements like “I’m going to kill her” and “I’m going to slam her head against the wall”.

Lucy Poole claimed Tiesi told her she would “f–k [her] up” if tasks weren’t completed properly and regularly recounted “numerous” physical fights with other people “to intimidate” her. On approximately September 7, 2023, Tiesi allegedly flew into a rage, screaming that Poole was a “f—ing idiot” and “a short bus bitch who can’t do shit”.

When Poole announced she was leaving because she didn’t want to be spoken to that way, the confrontation allegedly escalated further.

LGBTQ Discrimination and Homophobic Slur Allegations

Lucy Poole, who identifies as LGBTQ and has a mental disability, alleged Tiesi frequently referred to employees and coworkers as “fgots, cts, and rards”. Due to her mental disability and LGBTQ affiliation, Tiesi allegedly berated her with “short bus riding btch, ADHD idiot, and dodo head”.

The lawsuit claims Tiesi forced Poole to throw away anything in her child’s closet that displayed rainbows or items that could be construed as “feminine or girly,” stating her child was not going to grow up to be a “f–got” while knowing Poole was a member of the LGBTQ community.

Kenneth Gomez’s Discrimination Claims

Kenneth Gomez, who is also a member of the LGBTQ community, alleged that Tiesi would “repeatedly make derogatory and demeaning comments about members of the LGBTQ community”.

The repeated use of homophobic language and discriminatory comments allegedly created an environment where LGBTQ employees felt targeted, humiliated, and unsafe.

California Labor Code Violations Alleged

The lawsuit accuses Tiesi of violating “various California Labor Code sections regarding hours, conditions, and payment of wages”.

Specific Labor Violations Claimed:

Improper wage payment practices
Failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks
Violations of working hour regulations
Improper employment termination procedures

Poole alleged Tiesi called and texted “all hours of the day” with work demands and threatened not to pay her or threatened to assault her when she questioned assigned tasks. She claimed she was ultimately forced to resign after not being paid properly.

Bre Selling Sunset Lawsuit, $12.75M Workplace Harassment Case & Shocking LGBTQ Discrimination Claims Exposed

Bre Tiesi’s Legal Defense Strategy

In July 2024, Tiesi filed a motion arguing the court should dismiss the case, stressing she did not create a toxic work environment and took “reasonable care” to “correct promptly any alleged harassing, discriminatory, or retaliatory behavior”.

Key Defense Arguments

Tiesi’s attorney stated: “The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because [Bre] conduct was privileged, justified, and/or permissible under California law, consistent with community standards”.

Tiesi denied all allegations of wrongdoing and argued her actions were justified by business necessity. Her legal team claims the former employees’ allegations lack merit and should not proceed to trial.

The dismissal motion represents Tiesi’s attempt to end the litigation before discovery produces additional evidence. Courts typically deny dismissal motions when factual disputes exist that require jury determination.

Cast Members Distance Themselves After Lawsuit Revelations

After Selling Sunset season 8 premiered in September 2024, Chrishell Stause revealed she is no longer friends with Tiesi, stating she “unfortunately got some insider looks” into the lawsuit that were “disappointing to learn about”.

Chrishell’s Public Statement on the Fallout

In a Snapchat Q&A, Chrishell said: “There was a lawsuit that came out afterwards and I unfortunately got some insider looks into some of that”. She later wrote: “finding out how she referred to my partner will not make the show, but no this is not just a political thing to those saying that”.

Stause explained they “had to tip toe around the real issues while filming” because of the pending lawsuit. She told fans: “She has an ongoing lawsuit going on. If what is involved in the lawsuit and her own text messages become public, you guys will see”.

The reference to “text messages” suggests documentary evidence exists that could prove damaging if introduced at trial or made public through court filings.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Violations

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s principal employment discrimination statute providing broader protections than federal law.

FEHA’s Workplace Harassment Protections

FEHA prohibits harassment based on protected categories against employees, applicants, unpaid interns, volunteers, or contractors, and applies to all workplaces regardless of size—even those with only one employee.

In July 2024, the California Supreme Court established new precedent in Bailey v. San Francisco, holding that “an isolated act of harassment,” such as a coworker’s one-time use of a particularly egregious racial epithet, may be enough to support a hostile work environment claim under FEHA.

This ruling significantly strengthens the plaintiffs’ case. If a single slur can constitute actionable harassment, the repeated homophobic language and threats alleged against Tiesi would easily meet the legal threshold.

Protected Characteristics Under FEHA

FEHA prohibits employment discrimination based on age (40 and over), ancestry, color, creed, disability (mental and physical), marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.

The plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely within FEHA’s protected categories:

Sexual orientation discrimination (LGBTQ status)
Disability discrimination (mental disability)
Sex-based harassment and discrimination

Harassment based on an employee’s protected characteristic is illegal and applies to every employer, regardless of how many employees they have. Even if Tiesi employed only three people, FEHA’s harassment provisions would apply.

Potential Liability Exposure and Legal Precedents

Once a plaintiff establishes that harassment occurred in the workplace, the employer may be found liable for compensation including lost wages and other damages, attorney’s fees, and job reinstatement, plus required internal policy changes.

Damages Available Under FEHA

Under FEHA, there is no cap on compensatory or punitive damages, unlike federal laws which cap damages based on employer size, meaning potential higher payouts in discrimination and harassment lawsuits.

This unlimited damages provision explains the plaintiffs’ $12.75 million demand. If a jury finds the allegations credible, FEHA allows substantial awards for:

Economic damages (lost wages, benefits, future earning capacity)
Emotional distress damages (no cap)
Punitive damages (to punish and deter similar conduct)
Attorney’s fees and costs

California law allows imposition of punitive damages when a defendant’s conduct involves malice, oppression, or fraud, or when managing agents approve or consciously disregard prohibited conduct.

Impact on Tiesi’s Reality TV Career

The lawsuit notes that fame and growing media influence Tiesi gained from being on Selling Sunset had a negative influence on her personality, with former employees claiming her behavior worsened after joining the cast.

Court documents referred to Tiesi as “a social media personality who has more than 1.4 million followers, numerous brand deals, and was/is featured on Netflix’s hit series Selling Sunset,” noting she “developed a reputation for instigating dramatic and explosive confrontations with colleagues”.

Season 9 Uncertainty and Cast Dynamics

Netflix confirmed Selling Sunset season 9 will debut on October 29, 2025, but the lawsuit has created significant tension among cast members. Multiple co-stars have publicly distanced themselves from Tiesi, potentially affecting her role on the show.

The entertainment industry typically includes morality clauses in contracts allowing producers to terminate talent facing serious legal allegations. If the case proceeds to trial with damaging testimony and evidence, Netflix and the Oppenheim Group may face public pressure to address Tiesi’s continued involvement.

Comparison to Similar Entertainment Industry Lawsuits

Entertainment industry workplace harassment cases demonstrate substantial liability exposure. Recent settlements and verdicts in California employment cases show juries take FEHA violations seriously:

Similar Case Outcomes:

Hostile work environment cases with credible witnesses often settle for seven figures
LGBTQ discrimination cases with documentary evidence (texts, emails) typically result in favorable plaintiff outcomes
Multiple plaintiffs with corroborating stories strengthen credibility and increase settlement value

The three plaintiffs’ similar allegations create a pattern-and-practice claim stronger than individual complaints. If one plaintiff’s testimony corroborates another’s, juries find the claims more credible.

What the Latest Developments Reveal About Case Direction

The July 2024 dismissal motion signals Tiesi recognizes the case’s seriousness. Defendants typically file dismissal motions when they believe plaintiffs cannot prove their claims or when settlement negotiations have stalled.

The case remains active with no indication the court granted Tiesi’s dismissal motion, suggesting the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive the motion and proceed to discovery.

Discovery Phase Implications

If the case proceeds through discovery, both sides will exchange:

Text messages and electronic communications
Employment records and payment documentation
Witness depositions from other employees or associates
Expert testimony on workplace standards and damages

Chrishell’s reference to Tiesi’s “own text messages” becoming public suggests documentary evidence exists that could prove highly damaging. Discovery often reveals communications defendants wish remained private, increasing settlement pressure.

Legal Rights and Protections for Affected Employees

California employees experiencing similar workplace harassment have multiple legal protections and remedies available.

Immediate Actions Employees Should Take:

Document all harassment incidents with dates, times, witnesses, and specific statements
Save all text messages, emails, and written communications
Report harassment to supervisors and HR in writing
File complaints with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD)
Consult employment law attorneys specializing in FEHA claims

Filing Deadlines and Procedures

Employment discrimination complaints must generally be filed with CRD within three years from the date an alleged discriminatory act occurred. You must file a complaint with CRD before taking legal action, though you can request an immediate “right to sue” notice when filing to proceed directly to court.

Legal Remedies Available:

Back pay for lost wages
Reinstatement to former position
Emotional distress damages
Punitive damages for egregious conduct
Attorney’s fees and costs
Injunctive relief requiring policy changes

Settlement Potential and Case Trajectory

Most employment lawsuits settle before trial. The question is whether Tiesi will agree to terms acceptable to the plaintiffs or risk a jury trial.

Factors Favoring Settlement:

Public trial would generate negative media coverage
Discovery could reveal additional damaging evidence
Three corroborating plaintiffs strengthen the case
FEHA’s unlimited damages create substantial exposure
Reputational harm from trial could exceed settlement costs

Factors Favoring Trial:

Tiesi may believe she can convince a jury the allegations are exaggerated
Settlement could be perceived as admission of guilt
High damages demand may exceed Tiesi’s willingness to pay

The case’s outcome will likely depend on what evidence emerges during discovery and whether the plaintiffs’ testimony remains credible under cross-examination.

Expert Analysis: Workplace Harassment Standards

Employment law experts note several factors that strengthen the plaintiffs’ case:

Corroborating Testimony: Three independent witnesses describing similar conduct creates a pattern showing systematic problems rather than isolated incidents.

Documentary Evidence: Text messages, emails, and recordings proving harassment typically result in favorable settlements or verdicts.

Protected Category Violations: LGBTQ discrimination and disability harassment carry significant liability under FEHA’s broad protections.

Employer Size: Individual employers without HR departments or formal policies face greater liability because they cannot claim proper remediation procedures.

Resources for Workplace Harassment Victims

Government Agencies:

California Civil Rights Department: calcivilrights.ca.gov
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: eeoc.gov
California Labor Commissioner’s Office: Report wage and hour violations

Legal Resources:

State bar associations provide lawyer referral services
Legal aid organizations offer free consultations for qualifying individuals
Employment law firms typically offer free initial case evaluations

Support Services:

LGBTQ workplace advocacy organizations
Mental health resources for harassment victims
Employee rights education and training

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the current status of the Bre Selling Sunset lawsuit?

The lawsuit remains active after being filed in April 2024, with Bre Tiesi filing a dismissal motion in July 2024 denying all allegations. The case appears to be proceeding through the discovery phase with no public indication the court granted Tiesi’s motion to dismiss.

How much money are the plaintiffs seeking in the Bre Tiesi lawsuit?

Each of the three plaintiffs is seeking $4,250,000 in damages, totaling $12.75 million for all three former employees. This includes financial losses, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitutionary damages, and civil penalties under California Labor Code.

What specific allegations did former employees make against Bre Tiesi?

Plaintiffs allege Tiesi subjected them to verbal abuse, harassment based on sex and sexual orientation, threats of physical violence including statements like “I’m going to kill her,” homophobic slurs targeting LGBTQ employees, and California Labor Code violations regarding wages and working conditions.

What is the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)?

FEHA is California’s principal employment discrimination statute prohibiting harassment and discrimination based on protected characteristics including race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, and age. FEHA applies to all workplaces for harassment claims, even those with only one employee.

Why did Chrishell Stause stop being friends with Bre Tiesi?

After Selling Sunset season 8 premiered, Chrishell revealed she got “insider looks” into the lawsuit that were “disappointing to learn about,” including how Tiesi allegedly referred to Chrishell’s nonbinary partner. Chrishell stated they “had to tip toe around the real issues while filming” due to the pending lawsuit.

Can Bre Tiesi’s lawsuit be dismissed before trial?

Defendants can file motions to dismiss arguing plaintiffs cannot prove their claims. Tiesi filed such a motion in July 2024, but dismissal is typically denied when factual disputes exist requiring jury determination. The three plaintiffs’ detailed allegations create factual questions likely requiring trial.

What damages are available under California employment discrimination law?

Under FEHA, there is no cap on compensatory or punitive damages, unlike federal laws, meaning potential higher payouts in discrimination and harassment lawsuits. Available remedies include lost wages, emotional distress damages, job reinstatement, attorney’s fees, and required policy changes.

Legal Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney specializing in entertainment law or employment law for legal guidance regarding your specific situation.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah