Fremont Theater operators deny firing employee for reporting sexual misconduct allegations

The former operators of the Fremont Theater deny allegations that they fired a security guard for reporting suspected sexual misconduct, outlining 52 points in a filing on May 12.

In January, former security guard Ryan Twidwell sued the Fremont Theater Entertainment Group, claiming he was fired in 2022 for reporting allegations of sexual misconduct involving a 45-year-old employee and a 15-year-old coworker.

Fremont Theater Entertainment Group, owned by Dan Sheehan and Taylor Stevens, managed the venue but does not own the historic property in downtown San Luis Obispo, according to attorney Paul G. Metchik, who represents the theater owners. FTEG is no longer a tenant of the facility.

Twidwell, who was the head of security for the entertainment venue from 2017 to September 2022, alleges that while working a music festival in July 2022, a fellow employee told Twidwell he had had sexual contact with a 15-year-old coworker, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint says the employee “seduced” the 15-year-old in a downtown parking garage and “illegally engaged in sexual acts with the minor,” including oral sex. The complaint alleges the employee told Twidwell that he had explicit images of the minor girl on his cell phone, which he got rid of.

In his lawsuit, Twidwell says he reported it to Sheehan, Stevens and other company executives, additionally requesting the employee be removed from work until an investigation could be conducted. The employee was not punished after the incident was reported, Twidwell said. Twidwell, meanwhile, was suspended while an investigation was pending, he said.

In their response to the lawsuit, attorneys Trevor Large and Ian Durdle say that Twidwell or “other third parties” are at fault. Their “negligence” is not the defendants’ fault, the attorneys said. Any damages Twidwell sustained from reporting the misconduct were result of “superseding actions on the part of other persons or entities and not the defendants.”

They also allege some statements qualify as opinion and not fact, which they say are not actionable.

“Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to allow recovery of punitive or exemplary damages,” the response stated. They argue he “consented to and approved all the acts and omissions about which he now complains.”

The response also says that Twidwell’s termination was at will, “with or without cause.”

Ultimately, defending attorneys described the lawsuit’s claims as “frivolous, not based in fact” and “designed to harass and annoy.”

Therefore, the attorneys ask Twidwell to provide compensation for the legal fees and cost incurred for defense — similar to what Twidwell had asked of them.

Security guard alleges other complaints in lawsuit

In addition to the misconduct allegation, Twidwell also argued in his lawsuit he and other employees sometimes worked overtime at the Fremont Theater, but did not receive compensation for the overtime work.

Twidwell, an Army veteran, also claimed Sheehan and Stevens were aware he suffered from PTSD and used that as a means for discrimination.

In their response, the defendants said they would have terminated Twidwell’s employment anyway and that his PTSD was “not a contributing factor.”

However, Fremont Theater Entertainment Group alleges they were not aware of Twidwell’s overtime work, which “was undertaken without its consent or permission.” Upon further investigation, the response says, they believe they will determine the true hours Twidwell worked.

Further, the defense claims Twidwell failed to take the breaks he was given.

The employees’ and management conduct “was a just and proper exercise of management discretion undertaken for legitimate business reasons or was privileged and cannot form the basis of a valid claim for relief,” according to the response.

They claim in the response that “at all relevant times ... (they) have complied in good faith with all employment laws, labor laws and other applicable law.”

According to the response, the defendants have not completed their investigation and should be able to amend their defense statements as fit.

A second case management briefing will be held June 22.