CA Labor Commissioner Rules for Nadya Nabakova Against LA Direct

LONG BEACH, Calif.—In a decision released today by the California Labor Commissioner, adult actress Nadya Nabakova (who has since renamed herself Bunny Colby) has prevailed in her claims against talent agency Direct Models Inc. (often referred to as "LA Direct" or "LA Direct Models") and its owner, Derek Hay, regarding Nabakova's complaints of being forced to work under unsafe conditions while under contract to the agency, of having her earnings improperly withheld by the agency, and of being improperly charged for items by the agency which it did not have the legal right to collect. "We are very pleased with this outcome," said Courtney L. Puritsky, Nabakova's attorney. As AVN reported on August 1, Nabakova and Hay were present the previous day before Labor Commissioner attorney Max D. Norris for a hearing on the complaints which Nabakova had brought last January against Hay and Direct Models. Among Nabakova's complaints at that time were that Direct Models had violated its contract with her by 1) failing to provide Nabakova with a copy of the contract and various addenda which she had signed upon joining the agency; 2) sending her (along with several other women) to be a topless "ambience model" at a poker party at a Newport Beach mansion where she was solicited for sex and groped; 3) sending her to a POV shoot and leaving her alone in the room with the shooter/"talent"; 4) charging her an agency fee for a "content trade" shoot; and 5) withholding money from earnings she was due, in part because she owed Hay personally for rental of a room at his "talent house." In his 20-page "Determination of Controversy," Norris first laid out what the law requires of talent agents/agencies, one important and long-standing article of which is that agents are prohibited from sending clients to "any place where the health, safety, or welfare of the artist could be adversely affected, the character of which place the talent agency could have ascertained upon reasonable inquiry." Or as Norris put it, in bold letters in the Determination, "This is an essential part of the agent's covenant with the artist and its negotiations with the employer (the reasonable inquiry), and an agent's failure to do is is a material breach of any agency agreement." In fact, as Nabakova testified, at the poker party, which took place on November 30, 2017, there were anywhere from 50 to 100 men present, many of them drinking alcohol and some using illegal drugs, and who "took liberties with the models, groping them aggressively and attempting to trade tips for sexual favors"—and when two of the women agreed to perform a girl/girl scene in exchange for tips, they too were groped by the partiers as they performed their sex acts. Almost in passing, Norris notes that the groping of the sex performers by the partiers might be construed as an act of prostitution in violation of California laws and the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Freeman. What he wrote was, "Where these tips were part of a quid-pro-quo for sex acts, the line between 'ambience modeling' and prostitution starts to blur again." "A reasonable agent upon reasonable inquiry would have realized that this situation required security, and would have either secured assurances during procurement that the party's host would provide security and provide that information to the artists or would have sent the artists with security provided by the agency," Norris stated, again in boldface type, adding that such conduct on Direct Models' part was "reckless." "HAY testified that he had sent models to these parties for years without security, ostensibly given as an excuse, but which only makes clearer his disregard for the artists' health, safety and welfare," Norris wrote. He also noted that, unlike the legitimate adult video jobs on which Direct Models sent performers, none of the men at the poker party had been screened for STDs, and their groping might have infected the women if the men were carriers of disease. When Hay attempted to send Nabakova on another "ambience model" gig in early December, 2017, she told him of what had happened at the poker party and how unhappy she was with it. Hay's reported comment to her was that "this may not be the business for you"—a comment which Norris took as evidence of Hay's lack of concern for his talent. Regarding the financial dispute between the parties, early in the Determination, Norris noted that several of the "addenda" to the Direct Models contract which Nabakova had signed were not approved by the Labor Commissioner and thus were invalid and unenforceable, especially as regards some of the fees (such as a charge of $200 for photos of Nabakova for Direct Models' website), and he further noted that the agreement for Nabakova's room at the "model house" was with Hay personally and not Direct Models. However, when Nabakova sent Direct Models a bill for earnings owed, the agency deducted the unpaid rent which Hay claimed Nabakova owed him, again in violation of the law. Norris also disallowed the $250 that Direct Models wanted to charge Nabakova for the content trade, and for that malfeasance and the others covered in the Determination, Norris found Direct Models liable for more than $3,000 in unpaid earnings as well as Nabakova's attorney's fees. Upon learning of the verdict, Nabakova commented, "I'm very happy with the outcome. It reads like the Labor Commissioner was very pissed off at him [Derek]. The whole situation is hilarious in a very fucked up way. What really struck me is, they did mention a lot about how Derek said 'I have years of experience' and this and that, and parts of what I read said basically, 'He should know better. This guy is fucking up, and if he's fucking up in this situation, he's probably fucking up a lot." To offer Nadya/Bunny content production work, she can be contacted at [email protected]. AVN has reached out to Direct Models (via Derek Hay) for comment on the decision, and when/if such comments are received, they will be appended to this article.