Picture a young associate at a prestigious firm, eager to climb the professional ladder, yet suddenly cornered by a chilling ultimatum: comply with the supervisor’s escalating sexual demands or risk derailing a budding career. After enduring repeated, unwelcome advances and veiled threats about job security, the pressure escalates – the supervisor demands explicit sexual favors in exchange for the employee keeping their role. Trapped between ambition and abuse, the employee faces a dilemma no employee should ever encounter. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses sexual harassment, extreme cases like this often expose its limitations. For Oklahoma attorneys navigating such harrowing scenarios, it is crucial to recognize that a less conventional but potent tool, the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), may offer a powerful civil remedy where traditional employment protections fall short.

THE LIMITS OF TITLE VII IN EXTREME HARASSMENT CASES

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 remains the primary vehicle for addressing sexual harassment in employment.[1] It prohibits employers from discriminating “because of ... sex,” which courts have long interpreted to include severe or pervasive sexual harassment.[2]^{, [3]} Oklahoma’s parallel law, the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), likewise, forbids sexual harassment.[4]

However, Title VII and the OADA have well-known limitations. For one, Title VII applies only to employers with 15 or more employees, leaving some workers unprotected.[5] Additionally, Title VII does not impose personal liability on individual harassers – only the employer entity can typically be sued and, then, only if the harassment occurred during the scope of employment or the employer was negligent in controlling the workplace.[6] This means a predator supervisor might evade personal civil accountability under Title VII.

Even when Title VII applies, its remedies are constrained. Successful plaintiffs are limited to capped damages (up to $300,000 in combined punitive and compensatory damages for large employers) and equitable relief.[7] These caps can pale in comparison to the egregiousness of some conduct.

Tort law might seem to fill the gap by allowing suits for assault, battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). In theory, a victim of workplace sexual assault could sue their harasser (and even the employer under respondeat superior or negligence theories) for battery or IIED. Oklahoma recognizes IIED (also called the tort of outrage), but the threshold is notoriously high. The Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 requires “extreme and outrageous” conduct exceeding “all possible bounds of decency” – behavior “atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”[8]^{, [9]} Many forms of harassment, especially nonphysical but highly coercive behavior, may not clearly meet this demanding standard as interpreted by the courts.

Moreover, if the harm is deemed to have arisen out of employment, Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation exclusivity could potentially bar some tort claims against the employer.[10] In short, neither Title VII nor traditional tort remedies have been a perfect fit for certain extreme workplace sexual misconduct scenarios – particularly those involving explicit coercion by a supervisor.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE TVPA’S CIVIL REMEDY: SCOPE AND LIMITS

Congress originally addressed sexual exploitation through criminal laws. The TVPA was enacted in 2000 primarily as a criminal statute targeting human trafficking and forced labor. The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations criminalized using “force, fraud, or coercion” to compel labor or commercial sex acts.[11]

Importantly, in 2003, Congress created a civil cause of action for victims of these crimes. Under 18 U.S.C. §1595(a), “An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator ... in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”[12] In other words, victims of conduct that constitutes forced labor or sex trafficking under the TVPA can sue their perpetrators (and even certain third parties who benefited from the exploitation) for damages.

Congress has also provided a generous statute of limitations: Victims have up to 10 years to file civil suits under the TVPA (or even longer in cases of minor victims).[13] By contrast, Title VII claims must be acted upon within months, not years.[14]

ACCESSIBLE EXAMPLES: THE MCMAHON CASE, THE SEAN ‘DIDDY’ COMBS CASE AND THE EXPANDING REACH OF THE TVPA

Recent litigation underscores the judiciary’s growing willingness to apply the TVPA in contexts of professional exploitation. In Grant v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a federal case filed in the District of Connecticut, the plaintiff, Janel Grant, alleged that WWE executive Vince McMahon and others violated the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. §§1591(a) and 1595(a), by coercing her into sexual acts under threat of professional harm and reputational ruin.[15]

Ms. Grant’s complaint describes a sustained pattern of manipulation, wherein Mr. McMahon allegedly used his authority within WWE to initiate a sexual relationship with Ms. Grant, compelling her through psychological coercion and economic dependence. She was allegedly offered employment and career advancement in exchange for sex and later pressured to sign a nondisclosure agreement under circumstances she contends were coercive. The allegations include threats to her career, implicit and explicit, and describe how noncompliance resulted in retaliatory actions and isolation within the workplace.[16]

Although the court has not yet ruled on the merits, the case illustrates key principles: that a “commercial sex act” under the TVPA includes any sex act exchanged for “anything of value,” such as employment, career access or financial security and that “coercion” encompasses psychological manipulation, threats of serious harm and abuse of legal or economic power, as broadly defined under §1591(e)(2).

Grant reinforces the core argument that TVPA protections can and do extend beyond conventional trafficking contexts and can encompass exploitative workplace dynamics where power imbalances are used to override individual autonomy.

For practitioners, Grant demonstrates how courts are increasingly attuned to the realities of modern workplace exploitation. When an executive uses professional leverage, implicit threats or reputational control to compel sexual conduct, such actions may satisfy the statutory requirements for sex trafficking under federal law.

In the news today, we’ve seen the litigation against Sean “Diddy” Combs provide a compelling real-world example of how the TVPA can be deployed to address coercive sexual exploitation in ostensibly professional or entertainment-related settings. Mr. Combs is reportedly under investigation for a range of potential violations, including sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. §1591, racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and transportation for the purpose of prostitution under the Mann Act. Authorities allege that for nearly two decades, Mr. Combs used his business empire, including music and fashion ventures, as a front for orchestrating events involving coerced sexual acts. These gatherings, described by insiders and plaintiffs as “freak-offs,” allegedly involved the use of drugs, intimidation and implied career rewards to induce compliance from young women and associates.[17]

A pivotal figure in the legal actions against Mr. Combs is singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, his former partner. In November 2023, Ms. Ventura filed a civil suit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, alleging that Mr. Combs subjected her to over a decade of physical abuse, rape and sex trafficking, including forcing her to engage in sexual acts with male prostitutes while he filmed the encounters.[18] Though the case settled within a day, Ms. Ventura’s allegations catalyzed broader scrutiny of Mr. Combs’ conduct and emboldened other alleged victims to come forward. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently executed raids on Mr. Combs’ residences in Los Angeles and Miami in March 2024 as part of a broader sex trafficking investigation.[19]

The federal nature of the investigation underscores the relevance of the TVPA in cases involving psychological coercion, abuse of power and manipulative inducement rather than overt physical restraint. The statute defines sex trafficking to include knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting or obtaining a person for a commercial sex act by means of force, fraud or coercion.[20] A “commercial sex act” is any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.[21] In the allegations against Mr. Combs, career advancement, lifestyle access and threats of reputational or physical harm were allegedly used to compel sexual compliance – conduct that may meet the statutory threshold.

Mr. Combs’ legal team has publicly argued that any sexual conduct was consensual and part of a consensual adult lifestyle. However, the prosecution and plaintiffs maintain that the cumulative pattern of threats, substance control and economic manipulation vitiated any real consent, aligning the conduct with the TVPA’s coercion-based framework.

While the events in question may appear sensational due to their celebrity context, the fact pattern mirrors many workplace sexual exploitation cases: An individual in a position of overwhelming professional or financial power allegedly uses that leverage to compel sexual acts under duress. Just as an employer who conditions job retention on sexual compliance exploits their authority in a potentially trafficked context, so too does a public figure who allegedly trades career opportunities for coerced sex acts. The Combs case, therefore, stands as a cautionary exemplar of how the TVPA is not limited to human smuggling or underground prostitution rings – it is equally applicable in professional and entertainment sectors when coercion and power abuse are present.

For attorneys, particularly those representing victims of coercive sexual conduct in employer-subordinate or mentor-mentee relationships, the ongoing legal proceedings against Mr. Combs demonstrate the importance of considering the TVPA as a viable remedy. Where Title VII or state civil rights statutes might fall short due to limitations on individual liability, damages caps or employer size thresholds, the TVPA provides a powerful federal civil tool to confront and redress the exploitation of vulnerable persons under color of authority.

A NOTE ON THE OUTCOME OF UNITED STATES V. COMBS, 1:24-CR-00542 (S.D.N.Y.)

Although a Manhattan jury acquitted Mr. Combs of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, it convicted him on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.[22] These criminal convictions may play a significant role in the outcome of the many civil lawsuits still pending against him. Although a Manhattan jury acquitted him of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, it convicted him on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Legal analysts say this result could aid civil plaintiffs. As trial lawyer Mark Zauderer told Forbes, the criminal trial likely gave civil litigants a roadmap to witnesses and helpful evidence.[23] Even though the most serious charges did not result in convictions, the prostitution-related counts could still support claims of sexual abuse or trafficking if the same evidence is involved. This is especially true because civil cases only require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, a far lower standard than the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials. In civil court, if he chooses not to testify, that silence may be viewed unfavorably by jurors. That is not permitted in a criminal trial.

Although the acquittals may dissuade some potential plaintiffs, Mr. Combs still faces numerous lawsuits involving allegations of sexual misconduct, some dating back decades and including claims brought by minors at the time of the alleged abuse. Plaintiffs range from celebrities, such as Dawn Richard and producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, to previously unknown individuals who accuse Mr. Combs of acts including drugging, rape, physical abuse and emotional torment. Several suits were filed just before or during the final days of the criminal proceedings. Taken together, these cases show that Mr. Combs remains vulnerable to substantial legal consequences on the civil side, even while the criminal verdicts were mixed.

SCOPE: WHAT KINDS OF WORKPLACE ABUSE FALL UNDER THE TVPA?

Two core prohibitions are most relevant: forced labor (18 U.S.C. §1589) and sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. §1591). Forced labor includes providing or obtaining a person’s labor or services through threats, harm, restraint or abuse of law or legal process (or any scheme intended to coerce through fear).[24] Sex trafficking, as relevant to adult victims, is recruiting or coercing a person to engage in a commercial sex act by means of force, fraud or coercion.[25]

A critical definition in the sex trafficking context is “commercial sex act,” defined as any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.[26] Courts have interpreted that term broadly – for instance, a coerced sexual encounter provided in exchange for continued employment or a job benefit can qualify as a “commercial sex act” under the statute.[27]

Thus, if a supervisor demands sexual acts as a condition of employment (quid pro quo harassment in its most extreme form) and uses threats or intimidation to enforce that demand, the elements of a TVPA sex trafficking claim may be met. The same facts could also implicate forced labor since the victim is being compelled to “provide [sexual] services” through threats.

It is important to note that the TVPA is not a catchall for any workplace harassment. The statute will not cover ordinary hostile work environment claims or boorish behavior lacking the required coercion. The conduct must rise to a level of serious compulsion or abuse of power. For example, verbal harassment or unwelcome compliments, without more, would remain solely a Title VII matter. The TVPA’s civil remedy is available only to victims of crimes defined in the anti-trafficking chapter of the U.S. Code.

In practice, application of the TVPA in employment contexts requires that the misconduct rise to the level of forced labor or commercial sex acts obtained through force, fraud or coercion. Unlike Title VII, which may impose liability even where conduct is ostensibly welcome but tied to quid pro quo propositions, the TVPA focuses on situations where the victim lacked real autonomy or meaningful choice due to coercive pressures. Thus, the statute’s reach is confined to extreme, exploitative circumstances ranging from the dramatic but realistic example that opened this article to allegations akin to the Combs case or less visible but equally coercive dynamics, such as threats of deportation, serious reputational harm or manipulation of immigration status.

LIMITATIONS: PRACTITIONERS SHOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS AND PROCEDURAL NUANCES OF TVPA CIVIL ACTIONS

A notable provision is that if a criminal investigation or prosecution related to the same conduct is underway, a civil TVPA suit must be stayed at the government’s request.[28] The statute mandates a stay “during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.” This is a valuable coordination mechanism that prevents a civil lawsuit from interfering with a criminal human trafficking prosecution, but it can delay the civil case for an extended period.

In the opening hypothetical, if prosecutors charged the supervisor under a trafficking statute, the assistant’s civil suit would pause until the criminal case concludes. Additionally, while the TVPA allows suits against individuals (unlike Title VII), collecting a judgment from an individual perpetrator may be difficult if they lack assets. The risk of a perpetrator being judgment-proof is a practical consideration.

However, the TVPA also permits suing those who “knowingly benefit” from a trafficking venture.[29] This can include companies or employers in some circumstances. For instance, an employer who turns a blind eye to a manager’s coerced sex-for-jobs scheme could potentially face liability as benefiting from the labor or commercial sex obtained. This is an emerging and complex area, essentially a form of vicarious liability, and courts are still grappling with the contours of “knowing benefit” in the employment context.

The TVPA is made much more potent when combined with a permissive statute of limitations, particularly for civil actions related to sexual abuse and other sexual misconduct. It was thanks to New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act, for example, that Cassie Ventura was able to bring her case against Sean Combs; the act established a one-year period (Nov. 24, 2023, to Nov. 24, 2024) during which adult survivors of sexual abuse could file civil lawsuits regardless of when the abuse actually occurred. Unfortunately, Oklahoma’s statute of limitations for civil actions involving sex abuse is relatively short; 12 O.S. §95 allows for the maintenance of such lawsuits for only two years after the act or, for situations where the victim’s discovery of the abuse was delayed, two years from the date the abuse was actually discovered or from the date that the abuse should reasonably have been discovered. While these limitations persist in Oklahoma for civil cases, encouraging progress has been made in the criminal law space.[30]

Finally, one should recognize that the TVPA’s civil cause of action was not available at all until 2003. Earlier victims of workplace sexual exploitation had no option of bringing a trafficking-based civil claim. Even today, not every provision of the anti-trafficking laws gives rise to a private civil claim for damages. For example, one federal court noted that the TVPA’s prohibition on obstruction of trafficking enforcement (18 U.S.C. §1591(d)) does not itself create a private cause of action for victims. The court reasoned that the “victim” of an obstruction offense is the government, not the individual trafficked, and thus, a private plaintiff cannot sue under §1591(d).[31]

Such nuances aside, the core offenses of forced labor and sex trafficking do plainly confer civil causes of action to victims through §1595. Congress has steadily expanded – not contracted – the TVPA’s reach over time, including eliminating any statute of limitations for trafficking civil claims by younger victims.[32]

THE TREND TOWARD EMPOWERING VICTIMS: RECOGNIZING HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE WORKPLACE

The evolving legal landscape reflects a growing recognition that human trafficking can manifest in unexpected forms, including within seemingly ordinary workplaces. The application of the TVPA in employment contexts underscores this shift.

USING THE TVPA IN PRACTICE: CASE EXAMPLES AND STRATEGIES

Several recent cases illustrate the applicability of the TVPA to workplace abuse, challenging the notion that invoking this law constitutes an overreach.

In Adia v. Grandeur Management, Inc., the plaintiff, a Filipino national working at an American hotel under an H-2B guestworker visa, alleged that his employer threatened to revoke his visa sponsorship when he attempted to resign due to mistreatment. This threat of deportation coerced him into continued employment. The 2nd Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Mr. Adia's TVPA claims, holding that the plaintiff plausibly stated violations of the TVPA, as the employer's threats constituted psychological coercion through abuse of legal process.[33]

This case demonstrates that courts are willing to interpret "forced labor" under the TVPA to include psychological coercion and threats of legal harm in employment settings. By analogy, threats to terminate employment or damage an individual's career unless they submit to sexual demands could similarly amount to coercion, compelling them to "provide services" – essentially, forced labor of a sexual nature.

On the sexual exploitation front, the TVPA has been used in high-profile litigation against Harvey Weinstein. In Geiss v. Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, a group of women alleged that Mr. Weinstein and others engaged in a sex trafficking venture by luring aspiring actresses to hotels under false pretenses and then sexually assaulting them. The court allowed the TVPA sex trafficking claims to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Mr. Weinstein's conduct involved "commercial sex acts" exchanged for promised career advancement.[34]

The court recognized that offering professional benefits in exchange for sex, coupled with intimidation to obtain compliance, transforms what might appear to be personal misconduct into a form of sex trafficking. This reasoning applies not only to Hollywood producers but also to overreaching supervisors in various workplaces.

Another recent example is Doe v. Fitzgerald, where 10 women alleged that a nightclub owner trafficked them or facilitated their abuse in connection with the broader Nygard enterprise.[35] The court allowed some TVPA claims to proceed but dismissed others for failing to show a commercial sex act or the defendant’s knowledge of coercion. The case lends further support to the proposition that TVPA civil suits are becoming integral to litigation strategies in sexual abuse cases.

Legal scholars have observed that employing trafficking laws in such contexts "reenvisions" gender-based abuse cases, enabling creative remedies where traditional approaches have fallen short. 

REBUTTING THE CRITIQUES

Critics argue that extending the TVPA to cover workplace harassment blurs the line between genuine human trafficking and lesser misconduct, potentially diluting the term's meaning.[36] However, the TVPA's stringent requirements of force, threats or coercion inherently exclude ordinary harassment. The law targets only egregious conduct.

Practitioners can reassure courts that plaintiffs must still prove serious wrongdoing, such as intentional coercion, and that jury instructions in TVPA cases rigorously reflect these elements. Moreover, Congress intended the TVPA to have a broad reach in combating exploitation. As noted in Adia, the statute addresses coercion through abuse of legal processes and other subtle forms of force, not just physical restraint.

The existence of a workplace relationship should not immunize exploitative conduct; rather, the inherent power imbalance is precisely what traffickers often exploit. Using the TVPA in appropriate cases supplements Title VII, providing a pathway to hold individual wrongdoers liable and obtain damages commensurate with the harm in situations where Title VII is insufficient.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR OKLAHOMA ATTORNEYS

For attorneys in Oklahoma, the emergence of TVPA civil litigation presents both opportunities and responsibilities. It is crucial to screen cases for elements indicating coercion or forced conduct. If a client's sexual harassment narrative includes explicit threats, physical intimidation or abuse of legal or financial vulnerabilities, a TVPA claim may be viable.

This approach is particularly pertinent when the employer is not covered by Title VII due to size or when seeking to hold an individual perpetrator personally accountable. Including a TVPA count in a complaint can significantly alter the case's dynamics, introducing the potential for uncapped damages and attorney fee recovery and exerting pressure on individual defendants beyond what Title VII claims typically achieve.

Coordination with criminal authorities is also essential. Due to the mandatory stay provision under 18 U.S.C. §1595(b)(1), plaintiffs' lawyers should assess whether law enforcement is investigating the matter. Filing a civil suit promptly could spur law enforcement interest; conversely, engaging with prosecutors first may better serve the client's long-term interests. Notably, a stayed case is not a lost case – following a criminal conviction, many issues may be collaterally estopped in favor of the victim in the civil suit.

Understanding potential defenses is equally important. Defense counsel should recognize that motions to dismiss well-pleaded TVPA claims are challenging if the facts allege coercion. However, arguments may be made regarding whether the alleged misconduct falls outside the TVPA's scope, such as asserting that no "commercial sex act" was involved or that the plaintiff had feasible alternatives and was not truly compelled. These arguments hinge on specific facts.

Consent obtained through coercion is not a valid defense under the TVPA, which explicitly targets situations where apparent consent is nullified by fear. Employers facing TVPA claims for a manager's conduct may explore vicarious liability defenses, arguing that they did not "knowingly benefit" from a trafficking venture. Plaintiffs may counter that retaining a productive employee through illicit coercion constitutes a benefit to the enterprise. This area of law is developing, and Oklahoma courts have limited precedent, necessitating analogies from federal cases nationwide.

Ethical and counseling considerations are also in play. Not every victim of sexual harassment will be comfortable labeling their experience as "trafficking" – a term with heavy connotations. It is critical to explain the options to clients: A Title VII claim can be pursued administratively and might settle quietly; a TVPA claim is a federal lawsuit alleging a form of modern slavery or sex trafficking. For some clients, particularly those who have suffered truly coercive abuse, framing it as trafficking can be empowering and just. For others, it might feel like overreach or attract unwanted attention. The client's comfort level and goals should guide the decision.

From a remedial perspective, the TVPA's allowance of attorney fees and uncapped damages can also enable representation of clients whose cases might be economically unfeasible under Title VII alone, such as those with limited wage loss but significant emotional harm.

LEVERAGING THE TVPA AS A STRATEGIC SUPPLEMENT IN WORKPLACE ABUSE CASES

Oklahoma's legal community should recognize the evolving landscape of sexual harassment law. The rise in sexual harassment charges – over 7,700 filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in fiscal year 2023, a 25% increase from the prior year – indicates that victims are increasingly coming forward. In Oklahoma, numerous such charges are filed annually, and recent high-profile EEOC lawsuits highlight a persistent problem across industries.

Title VII enforcement remains vital in addressing "ordinary" harassment cases. And in Oklahoma, it is important to remember the versatility of the “Burk” tort, a feature unique to Oklahoma’s jurisprudential landscape that allows for an employee who has faced termination against a clear articulation of public policy.[37] Burk has been explicitly relied upon when an employee was constructively terminated after being subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment.[38] Of course, since Burk relies on the termination of the employment relationship, it would not be applicable to ongoing sexual coercion or to other kinds of adverse employment actions (demotions, reassignments, project exclusion)  within an employment relationship defined by sexual harassment. For such cases, the TVPA offers a powerful civil remedy that should not be overlooked.

By incorporating TVPA claims where appropriate, attorneys can hold wrongdoers directly accountable, secure fuller justice for clients and send a strong deterrent message. A savvy practitioner will carefully assess which cases merit this approach, ensuring the facts align with the statute and the client's objectives support a potentially more aggressive litigation stance. When these elements converge, the TVPA can bridge the remedial gap left by Title VII, ensuring that no victim of workplace sexual exploitation is left without a viable path to justice.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Katherine Mazaheri is the founder and managing attorney of Mazaheri Law Firm, a team of trial attorneys who have gained a reputation for taking on cases that attack various social injustices and help families in crisis. She is the current OBA Labor and Employment Law Section chair, chair of the OCU School of Law Alumni Association and a member of the Oklahoma County Bar Association board. She often mentors law students and new lawyers on employment litigation, sexual harassment and other Title VII best practices.

 

 

 

 

Troy Norred is a new associate attorney practicing employment, family and civil defense law with Mazaheri Law Firm. He is a member of the OCU School of Law spring 2024 class and served as an assistant resource editor of the Oklahoma City University Law Review. His practice is built around a commitment to simplifying the complex for his clients, as well as the foundational principle that justice should always be accessible.

 

 

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1]"Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Initiative." U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division website. http://bit.ly/4lpT1gZ. Accessed April 7, 2025.

[2] 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).

[3] Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64-67 (1986).

[4] Okla. Stat. tit. 25, §§1101-1706.

[5] See 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).

[6] See Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993).

[7] See 42 U.S.C. §1981a(b)(3).

[8] See Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 cmt. d (Am. L. Inst. 1965).

[9] See also Eddy v. Brown, 715 P.2d 74, 77 (Okla. 1986).

[10] See Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, §5(A).

[11] See 18 U.S.C. §§1589, 1591.

[12] See 18 U.S.C. §1595(a).

[13] See 18 U.S.C. §1595(c).

[14] See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1).

[15] See Grant v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., No. 3.24-cv-00090 (D. Conn. filed Jan. 25, 2024).

[16] Id.

[17] See Joe Coscarelli, “Diddy Faces Federal Investigation in Multiple States,” The New York Times, March 26, 2024; See also “Sean Combs Accused of Rape and Human Trafficking in New Lawsuit,” AP News, Nov. 16, 2023.

[18] See Complaint, Ventura v. Combs, No. 953543/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 16, 2023).

[19] See Shawn Cohen and Emily Crane, “Homeland Security Raids Diddy’s Homes in Federal Sex Trafficking Probe,” “Page Six,” March 25, 2024.

[20] See 18 U.S.C. §1591(a).

[21] See Id. §1591(e)(3).

[22] See Jack Queen, “Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs to Be Sentenced on October 3,” Reuters (July 8, 2025, 1:55 p.m. CDT), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawyers-sean-diddy-combs-propose-september-22-sentencing-2025-07-08/. Accessed July 9, 2025.

[23] See Conor Murray, “Here’s How Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ Criminal Conviction Could Help Plaintiffs in His Dozens of Civil Lawsuits,” Forbes (July 3, 2025, 1:49 PM EDT), https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/07/03/heres-how-sean-diddy-combs-criminal-conviction-could-help-plaintiffs-in-his-dozens-of-civil-lawsuits/ Accessed July 8, 2025.

[24] See 18 U.S.C. §1589(a).

[25] See 18 U.S.C. §1591(a).

[26] See 18 U.S.C. §1591(e)(3).

[27] See United States v. Rivera, 799 F.3d 180, 185-86 (2d Cir. 2015).

[28] See 18 U.S.C. §1595(b)(1).

[29] See 18 U.S.C. §1595(a).

[30] Oklahoma Senate Bill 1658 was signed into law in May 2024. This law eliminated the statute of limitations for rape in Oklahoma cases in which either 1) the assailant confesses to the crime or 2) identity is established using DNA evidence. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond expressed his enthusiasm for this achievement, emphasizing that the passage of time “must not be an impediment to the prosecution of rapists when DNA evidence exists or a suspect confesses.” Neither should civil remedies for egregious sexual misconduct be forfeited based on the passage of time. See “Attorney General Drummond praises Gov. Stitt for signing SB 1658,” https://oklahoma.gov/oag/news/newsroom/2024/may/attorney-general-drummond-praises-gov--stitt-for-signing-sb-1658.html. Accessed July 8, 2025.

[31] See Doe v. Fitzgerald, 102 F.4th 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2024).

[32] See 18 U.S.C. §1595.

[33] Adia v. Grandeur Mgmt., Inc., 933 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2019).

[34] Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

[35] Doe v. Fitzgerald, No. CV2010713MWFRAOX, 2022 WL 2784805 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2022).

[36] See Julie Dahlstrom, “Trafficking to the Rescue?” 54 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1 (2020).

[37] See Burk v. K Mart Corp., 956 F.2d 213 (10th Cir. 1991); Prince v. City of Oklahoma City, 2009 WL 2929341 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 9, 2009).

[38] See Collier v. Insignia Fin. Grp., 1999 OK 49, 981 P.2d 321.