Detroit’s Kid Rock is no stranger to salacious news stories, but when his name was splashed across headlines in association with a glass dildo a few weeks ago, the self-proclaimed cowboy remained quiet on the subject — until now.
The rapper-rocker took to his website last night and published two letters he states were sent to lawyers for both sides of an ongoing sexual harassment lawsuit against former Insane Clown Posse and Psychopathic Records employee “Dirty Dan” Diamond.
The letters address a subpoena issued against Kid Rock, in which he was ordered to produce the aforementioned sex toy as evidence in the lawsuit. According to attorneys for Andrea Pellegrini, a former publicist for ICP, Dan Diamond tried to offer their client the item in question as a gift during her employment. When his offer was rejected, Diamond supposedly gave the object to Kid Rock, who allegedly still retains possession of it. Pellegrini’s lawyers filed a subpoena against Rock at the Oakland County Circuit Court on July 21.
Detroit Music Magazine spoke with one of Pellegrini’s attorneys, Jim Rasor of the Royal Oak-based Rasor Law Firm, and also received a copy of the original complaint filed against Psychopathic Records, which can be viewed here.
For Kid Rock’s part, the musician goes from scathing invective against both sides of the case to firm denial of involvement in or even knowledge of the details surrounding the case. Read his letters here.
The following interview with Jim Rasor was conducted on July 23:
Could you give us some information regarding the subpoena against Kid Rock in the Insane Clown Posse case and maybe give us some background on why this piece of evidence is so crucial in Ms. Pelligrini’s case?
JR: Sure, I’d be happy to do that. Dan Diamond admitted at his deposition last week in Las Vegas that he… well, let me back up a little bit. Our client was the victim of incredible and severe and sustained sexual harassment during her employment with Insane Clown Posse, and when she complained about it, she was retaliated against and fired. The harassment was unconscionable and unlawful. Part of the harassment was that Dan Diamond, an employee of ICP, learned that she had changed her Facebook status to “Single” and had harassed her with a large glass dildo, indicating that she should take it home and use it on herself. During his deposition in Las Vegas last week, he indicated that it was not a large glass dildo, but rather “a work of art.” When we asked him to produce it, he indicated that he had given it to Kid Rock, Mr. Ritchie. So, the issue is, is this a large glass phallic object which he was harassing her with, or is this a work of art that Dan Diamond displayed?
Okay, so by my understanding, it sounds like even if this object were a work of art, if Mr. Diamond asked Ms. Pelligrini to use it on herself, that would not fundamentally change the merit of the suit. Is that correct?
JR: That’s an interesting question. I guess it goes to Dan Diamond’s character for truthfulness. According to our client’s description, it was quite the phallic object, and indeed, it was a dildo. Mr. Diamond claims that it wasn’t, and somehow that it was a work of art. Well, when we see the object, we’ll definitely be able to tell.
If Kid Rock does have this object, is he implicated in any way in the lawsuit against ICP?
JR: I don’t think so.
If he can’t produce it, are there any legal ramifications against him?
JR: Well, individuals have an obligation pursuant to subpoenas in the State of Michigan to produce the material. If they don’t do that, then they can be subject to an order to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
Would a warrant be produced, perhaps, to search his property? Is that something that could happen?
JR: No, not in a civil case.
Now, going back to the initial case, how long has it been going on?
JR: This case was filed September 16, 2013. “Dirty” Dan Diamond also admitted that he described in great detail his penis to our client and indicated that it was enormous, and altered in dimension, and all sorts of inappropriate stuff.
Was this before or after she had changed her Facebook status?
JR: I don’t know. Good question.
So the harassment had been going on irrespective of her status.
JR: Absolutely, the harassment was continuous and unrelenting. I guess the question is whether an individual should have a right to expect a workplace free from unrelenting and unconscionable sexual harassment, regardless of whether it’s in an office or working for a rock band. And in our minds, individuals don’t give up their rights to a workplace free from unrelenting and unconscionable sexual harassment just because they happen to be a publicist for a rock ‘n’ roll band. There are not categories or industries that are able to be exempt from the requirements providing a workplace free from sexual harassment. And I think that that’s a real interesting and central question in this case, because I think that the defense’s strategy will be to say that because [Ms. Pellegrini] worked in the music industry, that she agreed to give up her rights to a workplace free from unrelenting and unconscionable harassment. I don’t think that’s the case. I can’t imagine a world where industries are allowed to say that, “Well, you know, because we’re in the XYZ industry, we don’t have to comply with the law.” Can you imagine? No exemptions from the law, based on the fact, well, you work for a rock ‘n’ roll band, and the rock ‘n’ roll band is ICP, and because you work for them, they’re allowed to harass you, and tell you about their penises, and talk about your sex life, and subject you to daily, unrelenting, unconscionable harassment. I don’t think that’s the world we live in. I’d be very interested in what your readers think about that question.
Playing devil’s advocate, do you think that the defense would make an analogy between this case and the recent Hobby Lobby case, whereby employers are able to refuse to cover payment for certain forms of contraceptive care due to religious beliefs? Is that an analogy that could be made, if that is indeed the defense’s argument? Is that something you think they would pull?
JR: Well, you know, that’s the defect in the Hobby Lobby reasoning, and that’s the reason, in my mind, that that case was decided improperly. We have certain rules that apply to everybody, and once you allow companies to say, “Well, we don’t believe in that, and ergo, we don’t have to follow the rules that everybody else does,” then you get into this slippery slope of exceptions based upon, you know, how an employer feels. And I can only imagine a world where an employer would be able to say, “Well, we believe in sexual harassment of women, ergo, we’re exempt from workplace requirements that provide a workplace environment free of sexual harassment.” You know, at least with Hobby Lobby, religion is a First Amendment right, whereas I don’t think that the right to sexually harass women is somehow a protected right. They definitely could say, you know, it’s their freedom of expression to sexually harass women, but I don’t think any jury in Oakland County that that’s any sort of right that somebody has.