Maureen Doherty, a former in-house lawyer for Michael Jackson's MJJ Prods. who filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the pop star after she was terminated, will not get her day in court. L.A. Superior Court Judge Lorna Parnell dismissed the two-year-old lawsuit Tuesday, siding with attorneys for Jackson who asserted Doherty's claims were baseless.
The judge also ruled in favor of Jackson's cross-complaint, which means Doherty could be liable for Jackson's attorney's fees and court costs incurred while defending the lawsuit.
Doherty, who was hired by MJJ Prods. Inc. in July 1993 and was fired in September 1994 as part of a corporate downsizing, sued Jackson in March 1996 claiming she was fired as veep and attorney of one of his companies because of gender discrimination.
Zia Modabber, Jackson's attorney, told Daily Variety he was pleased with the ruling, and noted that it "completely vindicates" Jackson and his companies. Nabbing a 13-count summary judgment is unusual, as courts will sometimes leave at least one or two of the stronger counts standing to keep the lawsuit in play.
But in a nine-page order created by the court on Monday and received by attorneys on Tuesday, Parnell ruled that Doherty failed to present factual proof that would warrant a trial. The trial had been scheduled for April 27.
"The court is in agreement with the defendants that plaintiff's purported 'disputed evidence' consists largely of speculation, conjecture and beliefs," Parnell wrote. The judge also determined that many of Doherty's alleged facts are not "facts at all but rather constitute either conclusions without foundation, speculation and/or conjecture."
The 50-page complaint filed by Doherty and which alleged wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract among its 13 causes of action, sought unspecified damages from Jackson, his business manger Marshall Gelfand, attorney John Branca and Jackson's two companies, MJJ Ventures Inc. and MJJ Prods. Inc., all of whom were named as defendants.
Doherty also claimed fraud, saying the company failed to inform her at the time of her job interview that Jackson was under investigation for child abuse.
But the judge ruled that the defendants were unaware of the allegations at the time of the interview, making her claim irrelevant.
The ruling also stated that a number of other people, both male and female, were terminated at the same time Doherty was fired -- including the man who hired her.
"(Her) claim that she was treated the way she claims she was treated because of her gender is a conclusion unsupported by competent evidence," the judge wrote.
Attorneys for Doherty could not be reached for comment.
Contact the Variety newsroom at
news@variety.com