Two separate lawsuits accuse Tyler Perry of sexual misconduct: Derek Dixon sued in 2025 over alleged conduct connected to his work on The Oval and Ruthless; Mario Rodriguez sued later that year over alleged encounters spanning several years. Perry’s lawyer denied the allegations in both cases. As of October 8, 2026, the available reports and court materials do not establish that the alleged conduct occurred or show a ruling on the merits.
How the two lawsuits differ
| Case | Filed | Defendants named | Amount sought | Reported court status as of October 8, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derek Dixon | June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, according to The Washington Post | Tyler Perry | $260 million, according to The Washington Post | Plaintiff’s counsel reports transfer to federal court in Georgia and a fully briefed motion to dismiss; the reviewed timeline does not report a decision. |
| Mario Rodriguez | December 26, 2025, in Los Angeles, according to the Associated Press | Tyler Perry and Lionsgate | At least $77 million, according to the Associated Press | A March 10, 2026 federal order raised a jurisdiction question. The reviewed materials do not establish what happened after that order. |
The cases involve different plaintiffs and pleadings. Nothing in the materials reviewed establishes that the cases share evidence or that one substantiates the other. The amounts above are demands made by the plaintiffs, not damages awarded by a court.
What Derek Dixon alleges
The Washington Post reported that Dixon’s complaint alleged Perry used career opportunities and control over Dixon’s role on The Oval to create a coercive sexual dynamic. Dixon alleged harassment, assault, battery and retaliation. The Post also reported that Dixon said he met Perry while working at an event for Perry’s studio, later appeared in Ruthless and The Oval, and experienced unwanted conduct at Perry’s Georgia home and during a cast trip. These are allegations described in reporting on the complaint, not findings by a court.
Dixon also said he gave up a payment of almost $400,000 when he left The Oval, according to the Post. That figure reflects Dixon’s account; the reviewed sources do not establish it as an independently verified loss.
#1 Best Overall
Dixon’s amended complaint and reported claims
Dixon’s initial complaint and his later amended complaint are distinct pleadings. A public case timeline maintained by Dixon’s counsel says an amended and verified complaint was filed on April 1, 2026, after the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The timeline lists six counts in that amended complaint:
- Wrongful discharge and retaliation under California public policy
- Sex harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
- Sexually hostile work environment under Title VII
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Sex trafficking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
- Georgia RICO
These are the legal theories Dixon’s counsel says were pleaded in the amended complaint; listing them does not mean a court has accepted their factual or legal basis.
Rank #2
What Mario Rodriguez alleges
The Associated Press reported that Rodriguez’s complaint alleged repeated unwanted sexual advances over several years, including sexual assault and sexual battery. The complaint, as described by AP, said a trainer at a Los Angeles Equinox gym connected Rodriguez with Perry about a possible acting role and that Rodriguez later appeared in Boo! A Madea Halloween. AP described alleged encounters beginning in 2015 and continuing in later years.
Rodriguez also accused Lionsgate, the film’s distributor, of turning a blind eye to risks associated with Perry. That is Rodriguez’s allegation, not a court finding. AP reported that Lionsgate did not immediately respond to its request for comment at the time of its report.
What is known about each case’s court status
Dixon case
Dixon’s counsel’s public timeline reports that defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 27, 2026, and that briefing was complete by June 22. It also lists an August 14, 2026 notice concerning receipt of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue notice. The timeline is an account published by plaintiff’s counsel, rather than a direct review of every docket entry. As of October 8, 2026, it does not say the motion to dismiss had been decided.
Rodriguez case
A March 10, 2026 order from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California states that Rodriguez began the case in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 26, 2025, and that Perry and Lionsgate removed it to federal court on February 27, 2026. The defendants argued that federal jurisdiction existed based on diversity of citizenship. The judge questioned whether Lionsgate had been fraudulently joined and whether complete diversity existed, ordered the defendants to show cause at a March 12 hearing, and took Lionsgate’s motion to dismiss and a scheduling conference off calendar while the jurisdiction issue was pending.
That order addressed jurisdictional questions, not whether Rodriguez’s allegations were true. The reviewed sources do not establish what happened after the order, so they do not support saying the case remains in federal court, was remanded, settled or dismissed.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How Perry responded
In response to Dixon’s suit, Perry’s attorney Matthew Boyd told The Washington Post that Dixon had gotten close to Perry “for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam” and said Perry would not be “shaken down.” Boyd called the claims fabricated and said he was confident they would fail. This was Perry’s side’s denial, not a court’s conclusion.
AP also reported that Perry’s lawyer denied Rodriguez’s allegations. The sources reviewed do not report a merits judgment in either case.
What the records do—and do not—establish
The reported complaints set out allegations, while the procedural updates describe steps in the lawsuits. Neither should be mistaken for a determination of liability. The status summary above is limited to the materials available through October 8, 2026; later developments are not established here.
