LOS ANGELES — The first part of the Labor Board hearings concerning a petition against talent agent Derek Hay and his business, LA Direct, on behalf of five of his former clients wrapped up this morning in Downtown Los Angeles. The hearings will resume the week of November 4-8.
The case is also known within the industry as “the Jane Does case,” after the initial filing which did not identify the five performers by either their legal or stage names.
The Original Petition
The original petition was filed before the State Labor Commissioner of the State of California in June 2018 by industry attorney Allan Gelbard. Gelbard represented four petitioners, named in the original petition only as “Jane Does 1-4.” Shortly after that, Gelbard filed an amended petition, adding a fifth petitioner, “Jane Doe 5,” and correcting some typos in the original complaint.
The petition named two respondents: Derek Hay as an individual and Direct Models, Inc., doing business as “LA Direct Models,” a California corporation.
Gelbard, on behalf of his clients, petitioned the Labor Board to “determine controversy” between Hay, his agency, and the performers and requested “monetary damages, declaratory relief and the revocation of [Hay’s] license.”
The petition alleged that Hay had “exploited his position of power to abuse his clients both [sic] emotionally, financially and sexually.”
Through LA Direct, Gelbard wrote, Hay “promises potential adult performers fame and fortune. Once they enter into exclusive multi-year agency agreements, he fails to account for all fees earned as related to their employment, and uses his power to coerce them into improper business arrangements, and improper, unwanted and in some cases unlawful sexual relations with himself and others. Unless they comply with his wishes, he intentionally destroys their careers by refusing to book them for work, even when specifically requested.”
Allegations Against Derek Hay and LA Direct
The allegations against Hay specified in the petition include:
- “Unlawfully” locking performers through “multi-page contracts, only a single page of which he submits for approval by the Labor Commission.”
- Contracts involving “additional and unconscionable” fees and penalties “which he then coerces performers to either pay in cash, or ‘work-off’ by performing sexual acts on him.”
- Charging “Agency Fees” to producers in excess of the performers’ rates, breaching “fiduciary duty.”
- Failing to pay performers “their contractually obligated share of [their] fees which are directly related to their employment.”
- “Coercing” some of his performers into “escorting” and then, “should they seek to terminate their (illegal) contracts, threatens to ‘out’ them for performing illegal sex-work.”
The petition alleges Hay has “violated not less than five sections of the California Talent Agencies Act, as well as numerous other state and federal statutes, some of which being beyond the scope of this Commission’s jurisdiction.” The petitioners “reserve these claims for subsequent litigation.”
Procedurally, the hearings that are being held this week and next month — with Gelbard questioning the performers in front of Special Hearings Officer Patricia Salazar to obtain their testimonies backing up the petition, and Hay’s attorney Richard W. Freeman Jr. cross-examining them — are meant to demonstrate the allegations made in the petition.
Most of the incidents described by the performers date from 2017 and early 2018.
“Good Moral Character”
Talent agents and agencies are regulated by the state’s Labor Code, Sections 1700 through 1700.47 and by the California Code of Regulations, Title 8.
Section 1700.21 establishes that the Labor Commissioner “may revoke or suspend any license when it is shown that any of the following occur:
(a) The licensee or his or her agent has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this
chapter.
(b) The licensee has ceased to be of good moral character.
(c) The conditions under which the license was issued have changed or no longer exist.
(d) The licensee has made any material misrepresentation or false statement in his or her application
for a license.”
Through their testimonies and supporting evidence this week and in November, the petitioners aim to convince the Labor Commission’s hearing officer that Hay has “ceased to be of good moral character,” and that his license should therefore be revoked by the State.
Section 1700.22 affords Hay the opportunity to “be heard in person or by counsel” by the Labor Commissioner before deciding whether to revoke his license.
Beige Walls and Bulldozer Photos
This first part of the Labor Board hearings ended this morning at noon, and will continue on November 4. The petitioners have been giving their testimonies since Monday in a small, crowded conference room in a state building in Downtown Los Angeles. The historic building has a beautiful art-deco lobby, but the office floors have been modernized to a non-descript, slightly shabby corporate uniformity, with beige walls and framed photos of construction sites and bulldozers, apparently supposed to convey the theme of “labor.”
The conference room table occupies most of the room, covered in binders full of evidence (printouts of long text message exchanges, agency invoices, etc.). On one side, sit the five petitioning performers, wearing business suits, and Gelbard their attorney. On the other Derek Hay sits across from them, between his attorney Freeman, and a legal assistant. Hay does not make eye contact with his former clients sitting right across from him, noisily typing on a Dell computer and often excusing himself from the room as soon as breaks are called. He sometimes wears a bluetooth earpiece and tends to appear busy.
Before the proceedings begin and during the breaks, the performers are in a jovial mood, fist-bumping each other and chit-chatting about their daily lives. The mood changes considerably when the testimonies begin, especially when they are retelling disturbing parts of their allegations. More than a few times, the hearing officer had to call recess because a performer had become too upset to continue telling her story.
The hearings are reminiscent of a civil trial, with the hearing officer serving as a kind of judge, with a court stenographer to the side, and both parties on each side of the table. Press, including XBIZ, and other observers sit against the walls. There’s barely any room to move.
The hearings go from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a lunch break and several short recesses as needed.
Who Are the “Jane Does”?
Originally, the petitioning performers went by “Jane Does 1-5,” but a stipulation (agreement between both parties’ attorneys) before the hearing allowed for their stage names to be revealed. Their legal names and other identifying information revealed during the hearings are kept confidential for their safety, and are to be redacted from all pieces of submitted evidence.
The “Jane Does” are Charlotte Cross (JD1), Sofi Ryan (JD2), Andi Rye (JD3), Hadley Viscara (JD4) and Shay Evans (JD5).
Andi Rye and Shay Evans stated that they have stopped using those stage names because of their association with their years with Derek Hay and LA Direct. Shay Evans continues to perform as Gia Milana. Rye, through Gelbard, requested that only her former name be used in association with this matter.
Charlotte Cross and Andi Rye
On Monday and Tuesday, the hearing officer heard testimonies from Sofi Ryan, her husband performer Justin Hunt and Charlotte Cross. Wednesday started with Freeman continuing his cross-examination of Charlotte Cross.
Freeman tried to make Cross seem unreliable about her account of unfair cancelations and kill fees, chipping away at the performer's credibility. But then Cross became visibly upset when Freeman tried to characterize European producer/performer Pierre Woodman as an “award-winning” prestigious member of the adult entertainment industry.
Pierre Woodman was a recurring name in the performers’ testimonies, particularly one shooting trip he made to the U.S. in the summer of 2017. Woodman is a controversial figure among performers, specializing in gonzo porn, often with a “pro-amateur” audition/casting theme.
The petitioners characterized Woodman as a “very close friend” of Hay’s and alleged that they were not treated professionally on the shoots that Hay had arranged with the French producer, and that they were “afraid” to bring it up to their agent because of the men’s close friendship.
XBIZ spoke with other performers from different agencies who have been booked with Woodman and they have had varied experiences. Former Hay clients, however, seem to indicate that there was a pattern of the agent talking up Woodman as a “great opportunity” and booking them for “a double anal” (two male talents, shot by Woodman) often unusually early in the performer’s career. These “double anal” scenes were preceded by a “paid casting” go-see with Woodman and also included, immediately after the two male talents left the room, a POV oral sex scene with Woodman as talent.
Charlotte Cross, Andi Rye and Shay Evans were visibly upset at the mention of Woodman’s name, and gave different accounts of their discomfort.
The most harrowing tale was Andi Rye’s, who alleged that during the POV oral segment, without a warning or previous discussion about consent, Woodman attempted to urinate on her.
XBIZ confirmed that Woodman has attempted this “watersports extra” with other performers, but, unlike Rye, they described it as something he discussed beforehand and gave them the option to pass or ask for an extra fee.
Freeman showed a video, provided to Hay’s team by Woodman himself, with behind-the-scenes (BTS) and on-camera footage of Charlotte Cross talking about her excitement about performing with him. At the hearing Cross quickly dismissed those videos as part of her performance, her “persona” she called it, a hypersexualized excitement she faked on set to make work easier and “for the fans.”
At the hearing, Cross said she was “apprehensive about double anal DP.” During the taped interview with Woodman she had mentioned being excited about it.
“So you were willing to lie to Mr. Woodman,” Freeman argued, claiming that the statements shot for the video challenged Cross’ credibility. Cross retorted that her behavior on the Woodman set was a way of “selling herself” and not representative of how she actually felt.
Cross warned the Special Hearing Officer Salazar about her discomfort if the videos shown in court were going to include nudity. The video clips Hay’s team prepared showed Cross getting dressed after a scene and she did appear fully nude for several seconds.
The Luxury Companion
By far the messiest part of the hearings, and the whole case, concerns Hay’s precise relationship with two individuals, a man and a woman, who own a business called The Luxury Companion.
Hay owns Direct Models and is in charge of The Lee Network, a successful feature dance booking operation that arranges club engagements for many performers in the adult industry, including talent signed with other agencies. The Lee Network has a special relationship with the Sapphire chain of strip clubs, which is considered by dancers one of the most lucrative gigs in the gentlemen’s club circuit.
The petitioners, however, have alleged a less straightforward relationship between Hay and The Luxury Companion. This company, often referred to as “TLC,” is a legal entity in the state of California, described in incorporation and trademark papers as providing “escort services,” also defined as “personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals; security services for the protection of property and individuals.”
Escorting, selling companionship for an agreed-upon period of time, is a legal activity in the state of California. Helping people book escorting engagements is also legal, as long as the escorting is not facilitating other illegal activities, particularly prostitution.
The petitioning performers all admitted they had done work for TLC. They all alleged their knowledge of a close friendship between Hay and the couple who owns TLC. Several of the petitioners testified about having spoken to Hay many times about this friendship and having seen the three of them together in social situations. Several text messages were produced showing Hay referring to the TLC owners with extreme familiarity and even sharing promotional photos of LA Direct performers with TLC.
Gelbard seemed to be trying to convince the hearing officer that Hay was somehow “referring” models to TLC, particularly when they were broke and they needed to make money fast, and when they were in financial trouble because of “mandatory” expenses/fees charged to their Direct Models accounts. Gelbard’s questions also implied that Hay was deliberately underbooking the performers at times to accentuate their financial troubles, or because of personal grudges.
Cross’ testimony was unique in that she was familiar with the owners of TLC before she met Hay (the other performers testified they all met the couple after working with Hay or LA Direct). Questioned by Freeman, Cross said that the female co-owner of TLC had told her that among adult agencies “it was better to go with Derek because they have [the connection with] Sapphire.” By the tenor of his questions, Freeman appeared to be trying to characterize this as friendly advice, rather than a referral.
Compassion
Freeman’s cross-examination of Andi Rye attempted to establish that she had had almost no dealings with Hay himself during her time with the agency. Rye dealt mainly with other LA Direct employees, like agent Chris Fleming, bookkeeper Fran (who no longer works with Hay) and office manager Veronica, and a driver.
Rye testified that LA Direct’s driver took her for her first promotional photo shoot to the house of the TLC owners, who told her their house was sometimes used for adult shoots.
Rye also seemed upset claiming that Hay expressed no emotion and provided no emotional support to his roster after the deaths of two clients, Olivia Lua and Olivia Nova, in January 2018. Freeman replied showing her articles in a trade publication that quoted LA Direct’s formal statements of condolence after the deaths.
Rye’s testimony was also meant to buttress some of Gelbard’s main arguments about LA Direct’s business practices. The performers testified that a detail-obsessed Hay attempted to control their behavior with “mandatory” and “required” activities and expenses that went far beyond what someone “who is supposed to work for you” should demand.
Freeman acknowledged that Hay charged a $25 “processing fee” to the models for plane tickets that LA Direct booked for them, and that the agency charged “booking fees” to producers above the performer’s rates. “A director said ‘I’d love to work with you but your agent charges too many rates and fees and we can’t afford to book you’,” Rye testified.
None of these fees and overcharges, the petitioners alleged, were openly disclosed to them by the agency.
Asked by Gelbard what had prompted her to end her relationship with Hay, Rye replied, “It all added up, from directors telling me they wanted to work with me but Derek made it difficult, just seeing the lack of compassion for the models in his agency. He didn’t have the longevity of my career in mind and treated me more like an employee than someone who ‘worked for me.’”
“I got fed up,” she added.
According to LA Direct, however, it was their decision to terminate their relationship with Rye via email.
The state legislation regulating talent agencies does not have a requirement for “compassion.” Hay’s demeanor during the hearings is consistent with video interviews he arranged with his legal assistant and with multiple accounts of social and professional interactions. He appears detached from the proceedings, showing no reaction or expression as he types on his laptop. The only time he became animated was when the attorneys made a mistake on the number of days between two non-crucial events. The mathematical error caused him to spring up and indicate to Freeman that it was actually six, not sixteen days, before returning to his typing.
Shay Evans and Sofi Ryan
Shay Evans began her testimony Wednesday. Like Sofi Ryan, who testified Monday, she admitted to having had consensual sex with Derek Hay. But unlike Ryan, who Gelbard said had “a sexual relationship with Derek for a short period of time early on in her career, right after she started working with LA Direct,” Evans told of rebuffing the agents’ advances on several occasions until one time, after a party during an out-of-town convention, they had a single sexual encounter.
Shay Evans' testimony was the least precise in terms of a timeline. The beginnings of her professional relationship with Hay overlap with a very short marriage and subsequent divorce to a man who she claims submitted her application to both LA Direct and TLC on her behalf.
For the first few months of her adult industry career, Evans was entangled with this person in what she described as “a very abusive relationship.” After escaping this relationship, she said, she moved back with her parents, who kicked her out after her ex outed her as a sex worker.
Homeless and destitute, Evans says she called Hay.
“I was living in my car,” Evans testified, “I called Derek hysterical and he said ‘his friends would help me out.'” Evans specified these “friends” were the couple who owned The Luxury Companion.
“How would they help you out?” asked Gelbard.
“Escorting.”
“Can you be more specific?”
“Prostitution.”
Gelbard had almost identical exchanges with the other performers.
The male co-owner of TLC and Hay, according to Evans’ testimony “were like bros, they knew each other for so long, they had a game of who could get more girls to sleep with them, with the LA Direct models.”
“The same pictures” Evans had taken for LA Direct (and was charged for), she testified, “were on the TLC website without the LA Direct logo.”
Evans testified that the TLC owners attempted to book her through Hay for private sex work. She explained that she “was always at their house at this point” and spoke with them “a lot.”
The line between different kinds of sex work became blurred for Evans. She spoke of being booked by LA Direct sending her to “a hotel room with a single guy,” supposedly to make a porn scene, “multiple times.”
Poker Party/Karaoke Party
Gelbard brought up two private events in November 2017 that were described as “a poker party” in Orange County and “a karaoke party” in Downtown Los Angeles (DTLA). Both events were characterized as upscale social events with porn performers, some of them topless, being hired for ambience.
Even though these events did not involve shoots, according to Evans the performers could not opt out of them without being charged a “kill fee” to their LA Direct accounts.
Evans was charged the kill fee for skipping the OC poker party but was part of a group of LA Direct models who entertained guests for the same promoter at the DTLA karaoke party two weeks later.
The OC poker party was central to the 2018 case successfully brought against LA Direct by performer Bunny Colby, who had been a Hay client under the name Nadya Nabakova. Colby attended some of this week’s hearings to express her support for the five “Jane Doe” petitioners.
Gelbard introduced elements from the Colby case into the record, which Freeman objected to as “irrelevant, as [Evans] did not go to that party.”
Special Hearings Officer Salazar allowed information made available during the Colby case because, unlike in a full trial, “traditional rules of evidence do not apply, [since] this is a more informal hearing.”
Thus, it was entered on the record that Evans “was charged a cancellation fee for not going to a poker party that was subsequently found to be dangerous.”
Evans described the event she did attend as “a karaoke party hosted by the same people” where she was paid $300 to be “thrown in a room with a bunch of drunk guys” with “no security provided by Direct Models.”
Unlike other models, when signing with the agency, Evans had explicitly chosen not to make herself available for “bachelor parties.”
“It Was a Prison”
As for Hay’s sexual advances, Evans testified that Hay “asked [her] for a handjob” on the way to a dancing gig he had secured for her. When she returned from the club to his house, where she was staying, Hay, she said, “tried to open the door, but I had locked it” and then he “yelled” at her for doing so.
Then in November 2016, Evans and The Luxury Companion owners had traveled to the East Coast during Exxxotica New Jersey. They all met with Hay at one of New York’s Sapphire Clubs to support other Direct Models clients that were booked there. According to Evans, during the evening as the drinks flowed, it was decided that a trip to Hawaii should be planned. Evans claimed that Hay then asked her if she wanted to come back to his hotel room. She agreed. During the ride to the hotel, she said, Hay told her she “would get a lot more work and he would make her a star.”
According to Evans, that was the only time she had sex with her agent.
She claimed that the trip to Hawaii did end up happening in April 2017 and that Hay tried to force her to stay in his room. When she declined, Evans stated “my work dramatically stopped.”
The performer claims Hay also deliberately booked jobs she “really didn’t want to do,” singling out a “double anal” with Pierre Woodman.
“I didn’t think I was personally ready,” Evans testified. “I called him hysterical, crying,” but was told she would not be able to cancel it.
“What was it like working with Derek Hay?” Gelbard asked at the end of Wednesday’s testimony.
“It was a prison,” Evans replied. “I couldn’t do anything, I had no life. It was the hardest two years of my life, I should have been able to leave.”
“A Lot of Emotional Testimony”
Hay agreed to give a statement to XBIZ at the end of Wednesday’s hearing.
“There was a lot of emotional testimony today,” Hay wrote via his legal assistant, “and also a lot of serious contradictions to what the petitioners said was true.
“We look forward to presenting our evidence and our witnesses in challenge to the evidence of the petitioners. Our evidence will offer a more complete picture of the events.”
Freeman appeared ready to call one or two of their witnesses on Thursday, but the delays on the next day and the short session today prevented Hay from introducing them at all.
Delays
Thursday’s hearing began with a lengthy argument between attorneys Gelbard and Freeman about subpoenas each party had served to the other requesting documents. Freeman had filed their subpoenas only last Friday, and Gelbard also expressed frustration at Hay’s inability to produce many of the records the petitioners had requested several months ago.
“Mr. Hay lost his phone,” explained Freeman, “and doesn’t have his records.”
“Mr. Hay, who is not a resident of the State of California,” Freeman added, “has no personal documents to produce, no independent documents to produce. Mr. Hay did lose his cell phone in late 2018 and none of it is available.”
The delays on Thursday morning arguing over several procedural and evidentiary matters convinced everyone that there was no way to finish the hearings by today, which was going to be only a two-hour session.
Special Hearings Officer Salazar seemed frustrated at the delay for this case filed over a year ago. “I’m not gonna wait for 2020!” she told the lawyers, who continued bickering.
“I’ve been stonewalled!” Gelbard said, referring to paperwork he had requested from LA Direct, who had made some but not all of the subpoenaed information available.
No Wedges, No Popcorn
After a short break, it was time for Freeman to cross-examine Shay Evans. When asked why she had changed her stage name to Gia Milana, Evans said that she “needed a way to let go of the trauma that [she] had been holding on to.”
Freeman probed Evans about her relationship with Tristan Murano, her estranged ex-husband, and about the way he had found LA Direct.
“He liked the way the website looked,” said Evans. “It was a good brand and it was one of the first ones that came up.”
Evans described signing up with LA Direct, and Hay walking her through the contract material. She said she expressed concerns about the 5-year exclusivity period, but “Derek said it was typical of what they did.” Then the agent went over rules, some which were not part of the contract.
“He spent a long time talking about nail polish that he liked and didn’t like, about how I should never wear wedges, and specific things he wanted me to do or not do.”
“Some items made sense,” Evans said, “but some it was personal preferences.”
Later, Hadley Viscara would testify as to the “house rules” that Hay had insisted on when she had been living in his Los Angeles-area house as his tenant. “No Boys, No Drugs, No Popcorn.” This fastidiousness could “seem overbearing,” Hay’s own attorney acknowledged.
Evans testified that after her divorce, she started spending many weekends in Vegas, staying at Hay’s house, but that they were not having a sexual relationship. “I went to Vegas because he promised me jobs,” she said.
Freeman asked several questions about Evans’ allegations that Hay had tried to have sex with her before their single encounter during Exxxotica New Jersey. “Derek propositioned me,” Evans said, “and it was offensive to me.” She also claimed that at some point Hay attempted to “add himself as one of the male talents” on one of her call sheets (Hay performed briefly years ago at the start of his career as an agent under the name Ben English).
Hawaiian Vacation
After repeating complaints that LA Direct’s models were told that it is “mandatory” for them to attend industry conventions (with transportation, banners and 8x10s charged to them by the agency), Evans was questioned by Freeman about the Hawaii trip.
Evans presented the trip, and her refusal to have sex with Hay, as the beginning of the end of her time with the agency.
On April 2017, Hay and two other LA Direct models traveled to Hawaii, where the agent had secured a room for himself and a two-bedroom suite for the models at the Trump Waikiki hotel.
When Evans arrived, she says, “Derek was insulted” by her refusal to stay with him in his room. As a result, according to the petitioner, Hay cut work that would have been available to her after the trip.
Freeman presented dates that LA Direct had booked for Evans after the trip to contradict the performer. However, his evidence appeared to back Evans’ claims: it confirmed that Hay did book her with Pierre Woodman in June, and then between July 26 and October 4, Evans was not booked at all.
Hadley Viscara
The last testimony of this first round of hearings was that of Hadley Viscara, which began on Thursday and extended into the short session today.
Viscara’s account on Friday was, without a doubt, the most intense moment of the hearings. The performer, who has retired from the adult industry, described, in detail, two alleged incidents of “sexual assault” involving Hay.
Her testimony on Thursday afternoon began with Viscara describing her entry into the industry. She met James Deen at the Phoenix Forum and said she wanted to work in porn, specifically for Kink.com. She shot for the studio and then she emailed Deen asking for a list of agencies she should contact. Deen provided about seven names, and she picked LA Direct because she “liked the website.”
It took 10 or 15 minutes for agent Chris Fleming to reply. LA Direct wanted to represent her and Fleming arranged for a 3-way-call with Hay. “I’m very anxious for you to get started,” Viscara remembers Hay saying.
She was flown to Vegas in May 2017 and after expressing concern at the 5-year contract, Hay agreed to settle on a 3-year-contract.
“I was 23,” Viscara explained. “I thought 23 to 28 was a big chunk of my life.”
Since she was regularly broke, LA Direct began withholding fees from her very first job, starting with the original flight to Vegas. She also stayed at Hay’s LA-area house, was told to see Hay’s personal dermatologist, stayed at Hay’s Vegas home whenever she had to travel there for work, and was given a loan by Hay’s bookkeepers. All of these expenses were charged to her LA Direct account and discounted from her earnings. “I was really, really broke,” Viscara says. “I was eating only dehydrated rice and soy sauce.”
At some point in 2017, Viscara texted Hay that she was interested in “doing privates,” which Gelbard had her define for the record.
“Privates are one on one meetings with clients.”
“Is there another word for this?” asked Gelbard.
“Prostitution.”
According to evidence produced by Gelbard and Viscara, Hay texted back “Yes, I can arrange an introduction with a good friend of mine who runs a very successful service.”
Viscara identified this “friend” as the female co-owner of The Luxury Companion.
Later Gelbard asked her if she had wanted to be an escort.
“No,” replied Viscara.
“What did you want to be?”
“An adult film actress.”
False Entry
The hearings were full of emotional moments, but perhaps one of the more serious pieces of evidence against Hay’s business practices was much more mundane. Gelbard had Viscara go over several line items in her statements to identify overcharges, unusual fees and monies she had not received.
In the process of doing this, Viscara identified serious discrepancies between the invoices she requested before the “Jane Does” petition was filed in June 2018 and invoices provided to Gelbard under the subpoena.
Gelbard has referred more than once to “doctored statements,” and Viscara’s testimony appeared to corroborate this.
Section 1700.26 of the Labor Code unequivocally states “No talent agency, its agent or employees, shall make any false entry in any records.”
Racial Implications
Today’s hearing started with Gelbard asking Viscara about working with Derek Hay.
“At one point Derek controlled where I lived, what shots I got, how much money I could get…”
Asked if she had complained, Viscara just answered “You don’t cross Derek.”
Viscara recounted having been booked for a Florida-based studio that specializes in content “which happens to have very racial implications and very raunchy porn.”
Uncomfortable with the content she was asked to perform in, which according to her included holding a sign that said “I love BBC,” Viscara asked Derek if she “could decline and if it could have consequences for my career.”
According to her he replied that she had known about the shoot in advance and he wasn’t going to allow her to “manipulate him.”
She said she tried to explain she wasn’t try to manipulate him but he would not listen to her.
“I was uncomfortable with the racial component of the scene,” Viscara said.
According to Viscara, after several incidents when Hay allegedly tried to force her to go to conventions where she was losing money, or to cam from a closet in the LA Direct Los Angeles office, and not allowing her to work with people who were eager to work with her, Viscara had enough.
She told Hay to let her out of her contract “because she wasn’t happy” and in response she was told “you can go on May 23, 2020.” That would be the last day of her three-year contract.
“Then I’ll have to get a lawyer,” she told Hay.
According to her account, he replied “I’ll see you in court” and then he hung up.
Las Vegas, 8/23/2017
“Were you sexually assaulted by Derek Hay?” asked Gelbard bluntly.
“Twice,” replied Viscara. “August 23, 2017 and August 27, 2017”
Her account was precise and detailed. Viscara told her story with determination. She broke down and cried several times. Her co-petitioners were also crying.
Across the table, at some point Hay took out a magnifying glass with a built-in blue light and pored over a printout of WhatsApp messages, his eyes riveted on the lit messages. He did not react or make eye contact at any point during Viscara’s account.
“I told my roommate at the time, and nobody else,” said Viscara. “Derek controlled my work. He was the one who controlled whether I could pay my rent and pay for my bills. I was terrified.”
On August 23, Hay had taken her to dinner at a fancy Las Vegas restaurant. “I thought it was a client/agent dinner,” Viscara testified. They dined at the bar, where Hay appeared to be friends with the bartender. After “at least four drinks,” Viscara admitted she was tipsy.
“Derek drove us back to his house. He told me to come in and he went into his room and I followed him into his room and he took his pants off and when he came from behind the chair, he had an erect penis and he unzipped my dress and said he was glad I wasn’t wearing panties.”
At this point Viscara started crying uncontrollably. Gelbard asked her if she needed a break but she wanted to keep going.
“Did he ask for consent?” asked Gelbard.
“No.”
“Do you date men?”
“No.”
“She doesn’t date men! She’s married to a woman!” emphasized Gelbard, pointing at Viscara’s wife sitting behind her in the hearing room. Then Gelbard and Viscara explained that just as some straight male performers are “gay for pay,” she was “straight for pay” in her sex work but not in her personal life.
“Was he violent?”
Viscara became visibly upset again, but still didn’t want a break.
“The way he thrusted. It hurt.”
Las Vegas, 8/27/2017
The second incident according to Viscara was on August 27, the night of the Mayweather-McGregor fight. Hay had arranged for her to be a “house girl” at Sapphire Las Vegas, just a regular dancer among 300, not a featured performer.
“You go in, you pay $100 and put your dance outfit and walk the club.” Having to get her $100 Sheriff’s Card to be able to do the job, she was already $200 down before starting to mingle.
Hay was at Sapphire with some friends and also Zoe Parker, a model on his roster at the time who was staying in his house.
“After the fight, Derek and his friends got a table with bottles of alcohol. Zoe and I started to get to know each other and we started drinking. Derek left. Zoe and I went to the bar and started talking, doing tequila shots. I don’t think I’ve ever been so trashed in my life. I haven’t been so drunk. Zoe said I could stay with her in Derek’s house.”
Gelbard produced WhatsApp messages showing Viscara texting Hay from her Uber the word “HALP” and telling him she was so drunk they couldn’t remember the address.
“Zoe and I walked into Derek’s house and went into the foyer. He said goodnight to Zoe and then he took me by the arm and dragged me to his room.”
Again, Viscara broke down when describing the moment of penetration.
She said she voiced an objection.
“I said ‘I don’t wanna do this, can I just go sleep with Zoe?’”
Hay, according to her, stopped. “Of course,” he answered, “you can use the stairs here.”
Viscara said she told the other girl what had happened. Then she fell asleep in the guest room, naked. When she woke up her clothes were neatly folded on the desk.
Several months later, on March 31, 2018, a few weeks before Gelbard filed his petition, Hadley Viscara reported the assault to the police. She testified that she is in therapy and that she suffers from PTSD.
Having finished her story, Viscara finally asked for a short recess. All the models walked out together comforting her.
Cross Examination
Gelbard ended Viscara's direct questioning after everyone returned. First he played audio recorded during the Bunny Colby case when Hay had denied referring anyone to, or ever working with, escort services.
Then Gelbard had Viscara read out loud the June 2, 2017 texts between her and Hay talking about her interest in “doing privates” and about his offer to introduce her to a “friend” who “runs a successful service."
“Were you destitute at the time?”
“I was effectively destitute.”
“Were you a client of Derek Hay?
“Yes”
“And then he sexually assaulted you twice?”
“Yes.”
“I have no more questions,” Gelbard finished.
With only ten minutes left, Freeman started his cross-examination before the weeks-long recess, perhaps not to allow Gelbard to end on that note.
Freeman started off asking some questions about the line items in Viscara’s invoice, but then abruptly pivoted to “the August 2017 events in Las Vegas.” He first suggested that Viscara sexually propositioned Zoe Parker and that after being rebuffed she “went to Derek’s room.”
“Absolutely not,” answered Viscara, vehemently.
Then Freeman revealed his final card and the point at which he chose to end this week of hearings.
The lawyer produced text messages between Viscara and Veronica, Hay’s office manager. He then had Viscara acknowledge that on the 28th, the day after the alleged second assault, she performed a scene with James Deen for Elegant Angel.
Viscara told the hearing officer that she was “excited” about the opportunity.
Freeman then read a message from Viscara that evening, after the scene with James Deen had wrapped.
“I know you said not to text you so late,” Viscara allegedly texted the evening after the Mayweather-McGregor fight and the incident at Hay’s house, “but my life is so complete.”
The hearings will continue November 4, at the Labor Commission’s building in Downtown Los Angeles.
