Kylie Jenner Lawsuit 2026, Fourth Ex-Employee Sues Over Dog Bite, Locked Closet, Pepper Spray and Alleged Wrongful Firing

Kylie Jenner is facing her fourth employee lawsuit in about seven months. A former housekeeper has accused the beauty entrepreneur and members of her household management team of unpaid wages, disability discrimination, workplace injuries and retaliation.

The latest lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2026, in Los Angeles County Superior Court by former housekeeper Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya. She claims she was injured by pepper spray and a dog bite, was trapped in a closet for more than an hour, and was fired after questioning why she was not reimbursed for work-related travel. She alleges she worked six days a week at $40 an hour in cash and was denied overtime and expense reimbursement.

It follows three other complaints filed in 2026 by former household employees. Two housekeepers allege discrimination and harassment. A former private chef alleges pregnancy-related mistreatment and says demanding work contributed to a miscarriage. Together, the cases allege wage violations, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations.

None of the four lawsuits has produced a court finding that Jenner or any other defendant committed the alleged wrongdoing. Jenner’s attorney, Michael Rhodes, has denied the claims and accused the plaintiffs’ lawyer of trying to obtain an unjustified payout through publicity. He has said the cases will be vigorously defended.

The cases raise questions about whether California employment protections cover private household workers, whether employers owe overtime and mileage, what happens when an employee is hurt at work, and how much responsibility Jenner could face for what supervisors allegedly did.

Kylie Jenner Employee Lawsuits: Quick Facts

Detail	Latest information
Celebrity defendant	Kylie Jenner, 28
Latest plaintiff	Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya
Employment	Former housekeeper
Latest lawsuit filed	November 5, 2026
Court	Los Angeles County Superior Court, California
Plaintiff’s attorney	Della Shaker, Shaker Law Group
Employment began	About March 2025
Reported pay	$40 an hour in cash, according to the complaint
Employment ended	February 6, 2026 (alleged termination)
Main allegations	Disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage violations, false imprisonment, emotional distress
Alleged injuries	Pepper spray exposure and dog bite
Defendants	Kylie Jenner, Kylie Jenner Inc., Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group Inc. (also reported as Tri Star Services), La Maison Family Services LLC, Laura Dooley and Itzel Sibrian
Other employee lawsuits	Three filed earlier in 2026
Defense position	Denies wrongdoing; says it will vigorously defend
Damages sought	Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, unpaid wages and lost earnings; some plaintiffs demand jury trials
Settlement	None publicly verified
Class action	No; four separate individual employment lawsuits
Latest status	Civil litigation ongoing; no final liability ruling verified

Important: Filing a civil lawsuit does not establish that an allegation is true. The defendants have the right to contest the claims, present evidence and seek dismissal or judgment in their favor.

Why Is Kylie Jenner Being Sued by Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya?

Amaya says she worked cleaning and maintaining Jenner’s residential properties and that problems with pay, working conditions and injuries were ignored or inadequately addressed. The complaint, as described by Rolling Stone, Page Six and TMZ, identifies several incidents.

1. Kylie Jenner’s former housekeeper claims she was locked inside a closet

Amaya says supervisor Laura Dooley told her to enter a closet at one of Jenner’s homes using a security passcode. She alleges the door locked behind her and she could not open it. She says she phoned Dooley, explained she was trapped and began having a panic attack. According to the complaint, Dooley said nobody was available to release her and that she could not share the code, and mocked her request for help rather than promptly arranging assistance. Amaya says she remained inside for more than an hour.

The lawsuit includes a civil false-imprisonment claim. The complaint does not establish that Jenner personally locked Amaya inside or told anyone to do so. Whether the incident legally qualifies as false imprisonment depends on evidence about confinement, intent, authority and California law.

2. Pepper spray allegedly discharged into her face

The complaint describes an incident on September 4, 2025, when Amaya says she was cleaning a laundry room and an unsecured pepper-spray canister accidentally discharged into her face and eyes. She reports burning, blurry vision, irritation and continuing eye discomfort. According to reporting on the complaint, she texted her supervisor right away, the supervisor acknowledged the report but did not provide meaningful help, and Amaya was told to complete a household security incident report before seeking medical attention. She says her symptoms continued and affected her ability to do physically demanding work.

3. Housekeeper claims one of Jenner’s dogs bit her

Amaya alleges that on October 28, 2025, one of Jenner’s dogs bit her while she was cleaning a doghouse. She says she told her supervisor right away, but management gave no meaningful medical help or other support. She claims she bought over-the-counter medication, treated the injury herself and kept doing physically demanding work while she had arm and wrist pain.

A dog bite can raise questions of premises safety, workers’ compensation and California’s dog-bite statute. Whether a separate personal-injury lawsuit is available depends on factors including employment status and workers’ compensation rules.

4. Alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate

Amaya claims her condition got worse after the pepper-spray incident and the dog bite. She alleges the defendants knew about her continuing symptoms but did not accommodate them and instead assigned increasingly difficult work. Under California law, a covered employer may have to consider reasonable changes to duties, schedules or conditions when an employee has a qualifying disability. An injury does not by itself prove a legal disability or an employer violation. Those questions need evidence on the employee’s condition, the employer’s knowledge, the accommodations sought or apparent, and statutory coverage.

5. Amaya says she was told to stay out of Jenner’s sight

Amaya alleges she was sometimes told to leave rooms or stay out of sight while Jenner was present, and that this contributed to an intimidating and distressing workplace. Similar complaints appear in earlier lawsuits by other household employees, but similar accusations in different lawsuits do not establish that the conduct occurred. The defendants may challenge each employee’s account.

6. Alleged unpaid overtime, travel time and mileage

Amaya says she earned $40 an hour in cash and usually worked six days a week. She alleges she often worked beyond regular hours without the overtime California law requires. She also says she had to travel between Jenner’s residential properties during the workday and was not fully paid for travel time or reimbursed for necessary mileage. Wage claims are legally separate from discrimination and emotional-distress claims. A worker can potentially recover unpaid wages if the evidence shows a violation of wage laws, even if other claims fail.

7. Amaya says she was fired after questioning mileage reimbursement

The complaint says Amaya’s employment ended on February 6, 2026. She alleges that shortly before she was fired, she questioned why another housekeeper received mileage reimbursement and she did not, and she believes her complaints about pay and treatment led to her dismissal. The suit therefore alleges retaliation and wrongful termination. Whether the firing was unlawful depends on evidence of protected activity, an adverse action and a causal link. Timing alone does not conclusively prove retaliation.

Who Is Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya and Who Are the Defendants in Her Lawsuit?

Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya is a former domestic employee who says she began working in Jenner’s household in March 2025. The publicly indexed case record lists these defendants:

• Kylie Jenner.
• Kylie Jenner Inc.
• Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group Inc. (some reports refer to Tri Star Services).
• La Maison Family Services LLC.
• Laura Dooley, a supervisor.
• Itzel Sibrian, a supervisor.

The case is an employment discrimination action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The public case-index listing confirms the November 5 filing and identifies attorney Della Shaker as counsel for Amaya. The official Los Angeles Superior Court case number was not independently confirmed.

Is Kylie Jenner Personally Accused of Mistreating Her Housekeeper?

The newest complaint does not accuse Jenner of personally spraying Amaya with pepper spray, biting her or locking her in a closet. Most accounts say the incidents involve workplace conditions and decisions attributed to household supervisors, and that the suit holds Jenner and her companies responsible for supervision, scheduling and wage practices.

The complaint nonetheless names Jenner and her company as defendants and suggests they were involved in, or legally responsible for, parts of Amaya’s employment, including scheduling, supervision and pay. California law can sometimes hold employers responsible for the conduct of supervisors, but the extent depends on the legal claim, the employment relationship, the evidence and the statute. Being named as a defendant is not the same as being found personally responsible for misconduct.

What Has Kylie Jenner’s Attorney Said About the Lawsuits?

Jenner’s attorney, Michael Rhodes, has publicly rejected the allegations. In statements reported by Rolling Stone, Page Six and TMZ on November 10, he said the newest complaints come from the same lawyer who represented earlier plaintiffs and accused her of using publicity to seek an unjustified financial recovery. He said Jenner will vigorously defend the cases. Earlier reporting noted that Jenner and her representatives had not issued detailed public responses to the most recent case, and that the defendants have denied wrongdoing where responses were reported.

What has attorney Della Shaker said for the former employees?

Della Shaker has stressed how vulnerable domestic workers in wealthy and influential households can be. She argues workers may feel pressure to stay silent for fear of losing income or future opportunities, and says household employees should be able to report possible violations without retaliation. These statements reflect the plaintiffs’ position, and the defendants dispute that the alleged violations occurred.

Kylie Jenner Faces Four Employee Lawsuits in 2026

Lawsuit	Filing date	Main allegations
Angelica Hernandez Vasquez	April 17, 2026	Discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unpaid wages
Juana Delgado Soto	April 29, 2026	Racial harassment, mistreatment, wage violations, retaliation
Jane Doe, former private chef	June 22, 2026	Pregnancy discrimination, accommodation failures, alleged miscarriage linked to work demands, wrongful termination
Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya	November 5, 2026	Pepper-spray injury, dog bite, confinement, disability discrimination, wage violations, retaliation

Della Shaker represents the plaintiffs, and some of the same companies and supervisors appear in more than one complaint. The cases are separate civil proceedings, not one consolidated class action. They generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, unpaid wages and other relief. They center on conditions in Jenner’s private residences, not her public-facing cosmetics business, and common themes include long hours, wage and overtime issues, a hostile or discriminatory environment allegedly created or tolerated by supervisors, and retaliation after complaints.

First Kylie Jenner Lawsuit: Angelica Hernandez Vasquez Alleges Discrimination and Harassment

Former housekeeper Angelica Hernandez Vasquez sued on April 17, 2026. She says she worked for the household from September 2024 until August 2025. She alleges a hostile work environment involving discrimination and harassment based on her Salvadoran background, Catholic faith, immigration status and disability, including mocking of her accent and being treated as inferior, with insufficient corrective action. She also alleges she was given undesirable work, humiliated in public and retaliated against after raising concerns, and her complaint includes wage and overtime allegations. Jenner was named as a defendant, but reporting did not say she personally made the alleged remarks.

For earlier case history, see Angelica Vasquez vs. Kylie Jenner Hostile Work Environment And Employment Discrimination Lawsuit.

Latest development in the Vasquez lawsuit

According to November 10 reporting, the attorneys took part in mediation in October and asked for more time to respond to an amended complaint. A case management conference was set for November 10, but its outcome was not independently confirmed. Mediation does not mean a settlement was reached or that anyone admitted wrongdoing.

Second Kylie Jenner Lawsuit: Juana Delgado Soto Says She Left Jenner a Letter Asking for Help

Juana Delgado Soto, who said she worked for Jenner for several years (since 2019, per her complaint), filed her suit on April 29, 2026. She alleges racial harassment by a supervisor, emotional distress, denied breaks, wage violations, retaliation, and pressure to work while grieving a family death. She says she left for Jenner a letter in April 2025 describing the harassment and asking for help. According to the complaint, after the letter was found, supervisors threatened to fire her and told her not to approach or look directly at Jenner. She also alleges she had to stay out of sight when Jenner was present and faced restrictions on restrooms and drinking water. She says she left in August 2025 because of the ongoing mistreatment.

Read the earlier coverage: Juana Delgado Soto vs. Kylie Jenner, The 2nd Housekeeper Lawsuit and What the Filing Actually Says.

Latest development in the Soto lawsuit

Page Six reported on November 10 that both sides took part in mediation in October and asked for more time to respond to the complaint, with a requested response deadline of November 20, 2026. Rolling Stone also reported a hearing scheduled for March 22, 2027. These are procedural dates, not a verdict or settlement.

Third Kylie Jenner Lawsuit: Former Private Chef Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination and a Miscarriage

The third case was filed June 22, 2026, by a former private chef identified in court documents as Jane Doe (many reports do not disclose her name). It alleges pregnancy discrimination, failure to accommodate medical needs, harassment, wage issues, misclassification as an independent contractor, retaliation and wrongful termination. She says she worked 11- to 12-hour shifts five days a week during a high-risk pregnancy, told supervisors she needed accommodations, and was nonetheless assigned physically demanding tasks, including heavy lifting at events.

What allegedly happened at the Palm Springs birthday party?

The complaint describes a February 2025 birthday celebration in Palm Springs. The chef alleges she was given heavy work despite asking for help, became extremely exhausted and later had severe bleeding. The next morning she sought emergency care and learned she had miscarried. The lawsuit alleges that the demanding conditions contributed to the pregnancy loss. A court has not established that alleged medical causation. She also claims she was mistreated after the miscarriage and later removed from her position.

What is the latest court development in the chef’s case?

Her use of the name Jane Doe has become a contested issue. Jenner and affiliated defendants have challenged her ability to proceed anonymously. A September 2026 ruling addressed access to the case record and questioned whether she had a legal basis to use a pseudonym. Reporting identifies January 25, 2027 as a case management conference and January 28, 2027 as a hearing tied to the anonymity dispute. The case remains unresolved.

What California Laws Apply to the Kylie Jenner Employee Lawsuits?

California has detailed protections for employees, including people who work in private homes. Coverage depends on the worker’s actual duties, whether the person lives in the home, who counts as the employer and how many employees there are.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): Government Code § 12940

Provision	Legal protection
§ 12940(a)	Prohibits qualifying employment discrimination
§ 12940(h)	Prohibits retaliation for protected FEHA activity
§ 12940(j)	Addresses unlawful workplace harassment
§ 12940(k)	Requires covered employers to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment
§ 12940(m)	Governs reasonable accommodations for qualifying disabilities (and pregnancy-related conditions)
§ 12940(n)	Requires a good-faith interactive process on accommodations

FEHA’s main discrimination provisions generally apply to employers with five or more employees, while its harassment protections reach employers of any size. Government Code § 12945 adds protection for pregnancy-related leave and conditions. Under § 12940(j), an employer can be strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor, and an individual who harasses a worker can be personally liable, while individual supervisors are generally not personally liable for discrimination or retaliation under FEHA. A FEHA plaintiff must first file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and obtain a right-to-sue notice, within three years under Government Code § 12960.

California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights and Wage Order 15

Labor Code §§ 1450–1454 and the household-occupations Wage Order No. 15 govern overtime for domestic workers. A personal attendant (someone who mainly supervises, feeds or dresses people who need care) is treated differently from housekeepers and household-maintenance workers. California’s Department of Industrial Relations explains that non-live-in domestic workers who are not personal attendants generally receive overtime at:

• One and one-half times the regular rate for work beyond eight hours a day or 40 hours a week.
• Double the regular rate for work beyond 12 hours a day.
• Additional overtime rules for the seventh consecutive workday.

Different rules can apply to live-in workers and qualifying personal attendants. Amaya’s allegation of six-day workweeks does not by itself prove an overtime violation, since a court would examine actual hours, job classification, exemptions and pay records. The general overtime rule is in Labor Code § 510.

Remedies for unpaid wages: Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 203, 226

• § 1194 lets an employee sue for unpaid minimum wage and overtime and recover attorney’s fees.
• § 1194.2 allows liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages.
• § 203 provides waiting-time penalties when final wages are not paid on time (§§ 201–202 set final-pay deadlines).
• § 226 requires accurate itemized wage statements.
• §§ 226.7 and 512 govern meal and rest breaks, relevant to Soto’s allegation of denied breaks.

Wage claims generally have a three-year limitation period (Code of Civil Procedure § 338), and related unfair-competition claims can reach back four years.

Can Kylie Jenner be personally liable for wage violations? Labor Code § 558.1

Labor Code § 558.1 allows an owner, director, officer or managing agent who violates or causes the violation of certain wage-and-hour rules to be held personally liable. That could matter because the complaints name both Jenner and her company, but it depends on proof about who controlled wages, hours and working conditions.

California Labor Code § 2802: Mileage and expense reimbursement

This section generally requires employers to reimburse reasonable and necessary expenses an employee incurs because of the job. If a housekeeper must drive between properties during the shift, the resulting business-related transportation costs may be reimbursable. Ordinary commuting to a regular workplace is a different matter.

Labor Code § 98.6 and § 1102.5: Retaliation and whistleblower protection

Section 98.6 protects workers from retaliation for certain protected activity, including complaints about unpaid wages, and includes a rebuttable presumption for certain adverse actions within 90 days of protected activity. Section 1102.5 protects employees who report reasonably suspected legal violations to covered recipients. Each requires its own elements, and not every workplace complaint qualifies under every retaliation statute. The defendants may argue the complaint was not protected, the firing was unrelated or another lawful reason existed.

Independent contractor misclassification: Labor Code §§ 2775 and 226.8

The chef alleges she was misclassified as an independent contractor. California uses the “ABC test” under Labor Code § 2775 to decide employee status, and § 226.8 sets civil penalties for willful misclassification. The defendants can dispute classification and willfulness.

Pregnancy accommodation

Pregnancy-related conditions can qualify for reasonable accommodation under FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(m)) and the Civil Rights Council’s regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11035 et seq.). The chef’s claim depends on what she told supervisors, what was requested or needed, and how the employer responded.

California law on false imprisonment

False imprisonment is a civil tort covering intentional, unlawful confinement without consent or legal justification. Penal Code § 236 defines the criminal offense, and California’s civil jury instructions (CACI No. 1400) set out the civil elements. A key question is whether the evidence shows intentional, legally actionable confinement or an accidental lockout followed by an allegedly inadequate response.

California dog-bite law and workers’ compensation

Civil Code § 3342 generally imposes strict liability on dog owners for qualifying bites in public places or when the victim is lawfully on private property. Because Amaya says the bite happened while she was working, workers’ compensation rules may affect which remedies exist. Labor Code §§ 3600 and 3602 address coverage and the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy in many job-injury cases. Under Labor Code § 3351(d), a domestic worker is generally covered only after working at least 52 hours in the preceding 90 days. So the dog-bite and pepper-spray allegations do not automatically entitle her to a separate personal-injury judgment against Jenner.

Punitive damages: Civil Code § 3294

Punitive damages generally require clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression or fraud, with additional rules for holding an employer liable for an employee’s conduct (§ 3294(b)). They are not automatic.

Can the defendants force the cases into arbitration?

Employers sometimes move to compel arbitration if an employee signed an arbitration agreement (Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2). California courts apply specific fairness standards to such agreements. Whether any plaintiff signed one has not been reported. Employee confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions are also limited by Government Code § 12964.5.

Can a plaintiff use the name Jane Doe?

California courts allow pseudonymous litigation in limited circumstances, balancing privacy against the public interest in open court records (see California Rules of Court, rules 2.550–2.551 on sealing). The defendants’ challenge to the chef’s anonymity turns on that balance.

Can a Housekeeper Sue a Celebrity for Unpaid Wages?

Yes, if the worker can establish the applicable legal requirements. California employment protections are not limited to large offices or traditional businesses. Private household workers may have rights to minimum wage, overtime, breaks, reimbursement and protection from retaliation, depending on classification and coverage. An employer’s wealth or fame does not exempt a household from the law.

Being paid in cash is not automatically illegal. The questions are whether all required wages were paid, proper records and itemized statements were kept, and tax withholding and reporting obligations (including household-employer rules under the California Unemployment Insurance Code and federal law) were met.

For another example of California wage litigation, see KQED $895,000 Wage Theft Settlement, Check If You Qualify — Dulaney v. KQED, Inc., No. CGC-24-612506. That is an unrelated class-action case against a different employer and is not part of Jenner’s litigation.

How Much Money Is Kylie Jenner Being Sued For?

No fixed overall damages demand has been verified. Amaya seeks categories of relief that include:

• Unpaid wages and overtime.
• Unreimbursed employment expenses.
• Past and future lost earnings.
• Damages for alleged emotional distress.
• Compensatory damages for legally established injuries.
• Punitive damages where legally available.
• Other remedies allowed by law.

A court must evaluate the claims and evidence before deciding liability or damages.

Could Jenner have to pay millions?

A large award is theoretically possible in employment litigation with multiple viable claims, but no reliable figure can be calculated from the allegations alone. Damages depend on evidence of lost wages, actual injuries, causation and each defendant’s liability. There is no verified judgment requiring Jenner to pay any amount in these four cases.

Are the Four Kylie Jenner Lawsuits a Class Action?

No. The cases were filed by four individual former household workers, with separate allegations, employment periods and claimed injuries. Sharing an attorney or naming overlapping defendants does not combine them. A class action would require specific procedural steps and court certification, and no class certification has been identified. California’s Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2699 et seq.) is a different, representative-style route, and no PAGA claim has been reported in these cases.

There is also no public Kylie Jenner employee-lawsuit settlement fund or claim form. Kylie Cosmetics customers are not entitled to compensation because of these employment cases.

Why Are Management Companies and Supervisors Also Named in the Kylie Jenner Lawsuits?

The complaints name entities that manage or staff Jenner’s household operations, including Kylie Jenner Inc., Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group Inc. and La Maison Family Services LLC, along with supervisors Laura Dooley and Itzel Sibrian. California law can recognize more than one employer in the same relationship, and courts look at who controlled wages, hours, schedules, supervision and working conditions. A household owner, corporate principal, supervisor and staffing company do not necessarily have the same liability on every claim, which is why the suits name them separately.

Could the Four Kylie Jenner Lawsuits Be Used as Evidence Against One Another?

Potentially, but not automatically. Another employee’s experience can sometimes be relevant to notice, practices, intent or credibility, but courts apply the rules of evidence on relevance and unfair prejudice (Evidence Code §§ 352 and 1101). A plaintiff cannot prove her case just by pointing out that others sued. Each case must prove its own elements, and if one is dismissed the others are not necessarily affected. The overlap may still matter for strategy, discovery and settlement talks.

Kylie Jenner Employee Lawsuits: Complete Timeline

Date	Event
2019	Juana Delgado Soto says she began household employment
September 2024	Angelica Hernandez Vasquez begins work, per her complaint
November 2024	Former private chef says she began employment
February 2025	Chef alleges a miscarriage following demanding work assignments
March 2025	Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya says she began work
April 2025	Soto allegedly leaves a letter asking Jenner for help
August 2025	Vasquez and Soto leave employment, per their complaints
September 4, 2025	Amaya alleges pepper-spray injury
October 28, 2025	Amaya alleges dog bite
February 6, 2026	Amaya says she was terminated
April 17, 2026	Vasquez lawsuit filed
April 29, 2026	Soto lawsuit filed
June 22, 2026	Former chef files pregnancy-related lawsuit
September 2026	Dispute over record access and anonymity in the chef’s case
October 2026	Mediation and procedural developments reported in earlier housekeeper cases
November 5, 2026	Amaya files the fourth employee lawsuit
November 10, 2026	New lawsuit receives wide media coverage; Jenner’s lawyer denies the claims
November 20, 2026	Reported requested response deadline in the Soto case
January 25, 2027	Reported case management conference in the chef’s case
January 28, 2027	Reported hearing on the chef’s pseudonym
March 22, 2027	Reported hearing in the Soto case

Frequently Asked Questions About the Kylie Jenner Lawsuits

Why is Kylie Jenner being sued in November 2026?

Former housekeeper Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya filed a lawsuit on November 5 alleging unpaid wages, discrimination, retaliation, false imprisonment, workplace injuries and wrongful termination.

How many lawsuits does Kylie Jenner face from former employees?

Four separate lawsuits from former household employees have been reported between April and November 2026.

Who filed the newest lawsuit?

Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya, who says she worked as a housekeeper beginning in March 2025.

Did Kylie Jenner lock a housekeeper in a closet?

Amaya alleges she became trapped in a closet and that a supervisor mocked her request for help. The reported complaint does not establish that Jenner personally locked her in.

Did Kylie Jenner’s dog bite an employee?

Amaya alleges one of Jenner’s dogs bit her while she was cleaning a doghouse on October 28, 2025. This is a disputed allegation, not a court finding.

What happened with the pepper spray?

Amaya alleges an unsecured canister discharged into her face and eyes while she was cleaning a laundry room on September 4, 2025.

Why was Amaya fired?

She claims she was fired after questioning reimbursement and working conditions. The defendants dispute the allegations.

Did Jenner pay employees in cash?

Amaya claims she received $40 an hour in cash. Cash payment is not automatically illegal if wage, record-keeping and tax obligations are met.

Did Kylie Jenner cause her chef’s miscarriage?

The chef alleges demanding assignments during a high-risk pregnancy contributed to her miscarriage. Medical causation and liability have not been established in court.

Has Kylie Jenner responded?

Yes. Attorney Michael Rhodes has rejected the claims and said the defense will be vigorous.

Is Kylie Jenner being criminally charged?

No. These are civil employment lawsuits, and no criminal charge arising from the alleged workplace incidents was established in the reviewed reporting.

Has Kylie Jenner lost any of the four lawsuits?

No final finding of liability against Jenner in these four cases was verified as of November 11, 2026.

Has she settled the lawsuits?

No completed settlement was verified. Mediation was reported in earlier cases, but mediation alone does not mean a settlement occurred.

Who represents the former employees?

Della Shaker of Shaker Law Group represents all four plaintiffs.

Can Kylie Cosmetics customers file claims?

No. These are individual employment cases, not a consumer class action against Kylie Cosmetics.

What Happens Next in the Kylie Jenner Employee Lawsuits?

The newest lawsuit is at an early procedural stage. Likely developments include formal responses to the complaint, motions challenging individual causes of action, discovery, mediation and case management hearings. The defendants may seek dismissal of claims they believe are legally insufficient or ask to compel arbitration where an agreement exists. Relevant evidence could include payroll records, work schedules, messages between employees and supervisors, incident reports, medical records and employment policies. The earlier cases have their own schedules, including the pending response deadline in Soto and the anonymity dispute in the chef’s case. No trial verdict or comprehensive settlement has been verified.

The Bottom Line

Kylie Jenner’s newest lawsuit adds another former household employee to a growing set of civil complaints about her residential staffing operations. Amaya alleges workplace injuries, confinement in a closet, unpaid overtime, inadequate accommodations and retaliation before she lost her job. The allegations overlap in some respects with the earlier complaints, but they involve separate incidents and legal claims. Jenner’s attorney has rejected the accusations and says the defense will contest them.

The key legal questions are whether California’s employment protections were violated, which defendants were responsible for the workers’ conditions, and whether each plaintiff can prove her alleged injuries and losses with admissible evidence. For now, all four cases are civil disputes in which the underlying allegations have not been proven by a final judgment.

Court Records, Official Laws and Reporting Sources

1. Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya v. Kylie Jenner Inc., et al. — Public Case Index. November 5, 2026 filing, parties and counsel.
2. Page Six — Kylie Jenner Faces Fourth Employee Lawsuit. November 10 reporting, allegations, defense statement and updates on earlier cases.
3. TMZ — Kylie Jenner Sued by Former Housekeeper. November 10 reporting on the new complaint and the defense response.
4. Los Angeles Times — Former Chef’s Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit. June 24, 2026.
5. Los Angeles Times — Second Housekeeper Lawsuit. April 30, 2026.
6. Los Angeles Times — First Housekeeper Lawsuit. April 21, 2026.
7. California Department of Industrial Relations — Domestic Worker Bill of Rights. Overtime rights and household-worker classifications.
8. California Civil Rights Department — Employment Discrimination. FEHA protections, workplace harassment and reasonable accommodation.
9. California Department of Industrial Relations — Retaliation Protections. California Labor Code retaliation provisions.
10. California Civil Code § 3342. Dog-bite liability.
11. California Courts — Civil Jury Instructions. Legal elements for civil employment and injury claims.

Verification note: The November 5 filing and parties are corroborated by a public case index. The complete complaint was not obtained directly from the court. Detailed allegations are attributed to journalists who reviewed it. The official court case number, a damages amount and any later dispositive order have not been verified.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal-information website, not a law firm. This article is general legal information and public-record reporting, not legal advice. Allegations in pending civil complaints remain unproven unless admitted or established in court. The defendants dispute the claims.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the publicly indexed Los Angeles Superior Court case record, reporting by Page Six, TMZ, Rolling Stone and the Los Angeles Times, California Department of Industrial Relations guidance and the California codes, as of November 11, 2026. Last Updated: November 11, 2026.