Judge Dismisses Four Claims in Assistant’s Sexual Lawsuit against Vin Diesel, Some Remain

Vin Diesel got a court to throw out four employment discrimination claims against him on Tuesday, but still faces allegations of sexual battery and wrongful termination brought by a former assistant.

The assistant, Asta Jonasson, sued Diesel in 2023, alleging that he had accused the actor of groping her, forcibly kissing her, and faping in front of her in his hotel room in Atlanta in 2010. 

She claimed the alleged assault took place just over a week after Diesel and his production company, One Race Productions, hired her while filming Fast Five. Jonasson also claimed the production company fired her the next day in retaliation for resisting Diesel’s advances.

Per the suit, Jonasson cited California’s AB2777, which, like New York’s Adult Survivors Act, allows some sexual misconduct claims to be filed in civil court regardless of whether the statute of limitations had passed. 

In addition to claims of sexual battery, wrongful termination, claims of retaliation, negligent supervision and retention, and infliction of emotional distress, Jonasson also sued Diesel for four claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

However, plaintiffs must first file an administrative complaint with the state Civil Rights Department (CRD) before they can file a lawsuit under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This gives the CRD time to evaluate the allegations and decide whether to accept the case for investigation.

Diesel’s attorneys argued that Jonasson’s administrative complaint, required under FEHA, was submitted after the one-year deadline, and claimed California’s extension of the statute of limitations for sexual assault lawsuits does not apply to administrative filings.

Judge Daniel M. Crowley agreed with Diesel’s lawyers and dismissed the four FEHA claims. “Plaintiff’s FEHA claims are time-barred because she failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a CRD complaint within one year of the alleged adverse action, a jurisdictional requirement for a FEHA lawsuit,” Crowley wrote in Tuesday’s ruling.

Following the dismissal, Diesel’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, said, “It is unfortunate that a person who worked for the company for less than two weeks 15 years ago in another state is allowed to use the California court system to assert such baseless claims.” He added, “Next, we will present irrefutable evidence that the remaining fictitious allegations alleged herein did not occur and finally end what remains of this maliciously filed lawsuit.”

Matthew T. Hale, an attorney for Jonasson, commented, “While we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision on this limited legal issue, the Court made no factual findings that impact the remaining causes of action in this case. We will continue to advocate vigorously on behalf of our client, who remains committed to seeking justice.”