MrBeast files his Answer+

追加: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]I think the Lively versus Wayfair case will be a case studied, talked about, analyzed for ever. I think a lot of things come out of that case. But this video is actually about the Mr. Beast lawsuit. I'm reading the answer that they filed in this case. So remember, he was sued by a former employee who alleged that she tried to take pregnancy related leave and she did. and the company that she worked for that Mr. Beast owns um interfered with her ability to take that leave and then fired her as a result of taking that leave. So, this is filed in federal court and it's claiming violations under the Family Medical Leave Act and also violations of North Carolina's employment laws for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress because of the interference with her ability to take leave. Now, the reason this made me think about the Lively versus Wayfair case is because the answer to the complaint, which is typically just a paragraph by paragraph admission, admission, denial, admission, denial of the allegations that set as set forth by the complaint. It included a several paragraph introduction to the answer which is not typically required and not typically filed in an answer. So in the answer, Mr. Beast is calling this a preliminary statement and it's several pages long, some of which includes snippets of text messages and documents that resemble what we saw in the Lively versus Wayfair case. The kids say receipts. And in this preliminary statement, they are clearly trying to tell the story of the case because there is some level of public attention to the lawsuit. And this resembles what we saw in the Lively versus Wayfair case where the parties used the docket to control the narrative around the allegations and the positions that the parties were taking.

[00:02:23]So, just to level set, I have never knowingly watched a Mr. Beast video. So, I don't really know what his content is.

[00:02:32]I just know his name and I know he's big on YouTube. And I don't know who this plaintiff is. I think she's an influencer or has some kind of presence online herself from what the comment said in my last video and what this preliminary statement says. And so I'm really going into this completely blind, but again, I'm an employment defense attorney. And so I'm always going to view the case, often going to view the case from the perspective of someone receiving this kind of lawsuit. That being said, I sit in this beautiful position on my couch, not having to take a side. And so we read the filings and we determine where we land as we go on the ride. But I do find it interesting that they are using legal documents to essentially PR this whole thing to shape the narrative to set the record straight. So here plaintiff or the defendant here Mr. Beast is saying that Plaintiff is a social media influencer who filed this lawsuit to gain publicity by leveraging, you know, one of the most recognized names on YouTube.

[00:03:46]They say that she has over a million followers on Instagram. She also launched this lawsuit with a media blitz, which again I was not aware of necessarily. Um, she did interviews with NBC, New York Magazine, Associated Press, the New York Times, and apparently she had an Instagram post and repeated these allegations that they are claiming false in all of those. Where have we heard this before? So, Mr. claims that when she raised complaints in the past, like in 2024, they investigated those complaints. And some of this stuff that she's saying is just flatout false. For example, one of the big aspects of her claim is that she was asked or dragged back in the middle of her maternity leave to work. That's the crux of her claim under the Family Medical Leave Act. And they say that no, in fact, she wanted to come back for that. She specifically requested for permission because it had to do with some kind of promotion with a super popular Brazilian soccer player, Neymar, that she wanted to be a part of. And they in fact included, I think it's text message exchanges from her saying exactly how vital she felt, how important she thought that it would be for her to participate in that despite the fact that she's on medical leave or family medical leave because of her her birth, her pregnancy. And they're saying that she did that. As a result of that, she also spent some time in Brazil with her family and they honored a request for her to extend her leave to accommodate for the period of time that she worked in the middle of her leave.

[00:05:43]They also challenged her characterization of herself as the CEO of the company's verticals division, which they say is a title and role that never existed. and that the decision to let her go had nothing to do with her gender, had nothing to do with her leave, but had to do with a failing aspect of the business that they were restructuring. They also preempt the fact that she actually didn't bring a hostile work environment claim. I noticed that when I read the complaint, interestingly enough, she never raised a hostile work environment claim. And they're saying that even if she did, she would be time barred. it would not be appropriate for her to bring it. Sort of warning the court, maybe warning the public that there is no place for that kind of claim here. There is a strategic legal reason for saying that because then the lawyers for Mr. Beast can say, "We told you that you don't have a legal basis to bring that claim and yet you're trying to bring it anyways." So, if in the in the situation where we see an amended complaint and she tries to bring this claim, then I could see Mr. Beast's lawyer saying, "Well, we told you that you couldn't bring this claim and now here you are doing it," which is grounds for rule 11. They also point out the irony that one of the remedies that she seeks is reinstatement to her position. So if the culture was so bad, if it's so terrible and she was fired for improper reasons, why does she want to come back? So in a nutshell, Mr. Beast is vehemently denying that her leave was interrupted by the company's perspective. it was her request to participate in the Brazil spot that is the basis of her claims and that she was not fired as a result of her gender. She was let go because the part of the company that she worked in was underperforming and if those are all true if then they will prevail. It is plaintiff who has to prove that they interrupted her leave that she had no choice but to participate in those things during her leave. They forced her to and it will be her. It will be on her, the plaintiff, to prove that the real reason why they let go of her was related to her leave, related to her gender, and that the fact that the business was underperforming is really just pretext.

[00:08:24]In a nutshell, I think the lawyers on both sides of this case have learned from the Lively versus Wayfair case that people are going to be reading these documents. The public is hungry for the detail and they're going to be downloading these from court listener.

[00:08:43]They're going to be reading every word.

[00:08:44]And so now they know that these legal filings also serve as a way to control the narrative about what actually happened. Keep in mind the lawyers still have an obligation to only file anything they file has to be rooted in truth. It has to be true. They can't be knowingly putting stuff in legal filings that are false. And so the lawyers that are signing off on these things have to feel comfortable that they're filing something that they can stand behind.

[00:09:20]And so as the way celebrities litigate evolves because of these recent cases that we've seen, we're going to see some push back from the lawyers or should see some push back from the lawyers as to what level they would be willing to portray something in a particular way just to reach the public in a particular way because ultimately their licenses are on the line. So, I am now interested in following this case because I'm starting to see the impact that the Lively Wayfair case is having on other lawsuits and this was going to be something that people study for a long time and I'm very very interested to see what the follow through is on this. In this case, it looks like there's a discovery plan. So, they're probably engaging in discovery already, and that means that we'll probably have discovery fights. And so I will bring those to you as I see