Before the Patient Lawsuit, an Employee Spoke Up: A Prior Complaint Against The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center

The pending patient lawsuit against The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center is not the first time the facility and its ownership have faced serious allegations in Los Angeles Superior Court. Court records reveal a prior employment complaint, filed in July 2024, that raises its own set of questions about workplace culture, leadership accountability, and internal oversight at the Malibu facility.

A Former Director's Allegations

In Rigali v. The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center, et al., Case No. 24STCV18248, a former employee who held the title of Director of Administration and Compliance brought eleven causes of action against the facility, its parent entity James & Bentz LLC, and its individual owners, Kimberly James and Charles Bentz. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 23, 2024.

The claims include allegations of sexual orientation discrimination, disability discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, retaliation under both the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California Labor Code Section 1102.5, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate disability, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was hired as Operations Supervisor in June 2022, was promoted to Director of Administration and Compliance within 90 days, and subsequently experienced a pattern of conduct that included discriminatory remarks by ownership regarding his sexual orientation, verbal abuse and profanity directed at him by co-owner Charles Bentz, and retaliatory actions after he engaged in legally protected activity, including filing a workers' compensation claim on behalf of a co-worker with a broken finger.

Workers' Compensation Retaliation Allegations

One of the more notable factual allegations involves the plaintiff's role in processing a workers' compensation claim. According to the complaint, after the plaintiff filed a required DWC-1 form for a co-worker who broke her finger on the job, co-owner Charles Bentz called the plaintiff and berated him with profanities for following the law. The complaint further alleges that Bentz stated he would prefer to "pay it on the side" to avoid increasing insurance premiums, and that Bentz subsequently sought justification to demote the injured employee and expressed a desire to "get rid" of her.

If these allegations are true, they would suggest a troubling disregard for basic employment protections at a facility that holds itself out as a provider of therapeutic care.

A Familiar Name in the Narrative

The complaint also references Jennell Maze, identified as the facility's Clinical Director and the plaintiff's direct supervisor, who features prominently in the factual allegations. According to the complaint, the plaintiff repeatedly reported harassment and discrimination to Maze, who at one point acknowledged she was "not oblivious" and recognized that she was "complicit in the system."

Maze is also a named defendant in the pending patient lawsuit, Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669, where she is identified as the facility's Executive Director. Her appearance in both cases, spanning different time periods and different categories of claims, raises questions about leadership continuity and internal accountability at the facility.

An Internal Investigation That Went Nowhere

The complaint describes an internal Equal Employment Opportunity investigation that the facility initiated in October 2023 in response to the plaintiff's complaints. According to the filing, the investigator, Clark Williams, was a former employee with pre-existing relationships with ownership and management. The complaint alleges that Williams conducted the investigation in a one-sided manner, produced inaccurate summaries, failed to interview the individual owners, and ultimately found no wrongdoing, with no written report ever produced. The findings were communicated only verbally.

Whether or not these allegations are ultimately proven, the description of an internal investigation conducted by someone with prior ties to the parties under scrutiny raises significant concerns about the facility's approach to internal accountability.

Constructive Termination

According to the complaint, the plaintiff resigned on November 15, 2023, effective November 29, 2023, alleging that the defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no alternative but to resign. The complaint describes a pattern that included removal of tasks and privileges, removal of work-from-home arrangements, displacement from his shared office, denial of previously promised clinical internship hours needed for his graduate degree, and continued verbal abuse from ownership.

Why This Matters

The Rigali employment complaint is significant not because it has been proven, but because of what it suggests about the operating environment inside The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center during a period when the facility was actively treating patients.

A treatment facility's internal culture matters. How a facility treats its own employees, whether it retaliates against those who follow the law, whether it investigates complaints impartially, and whether its leadership is accountable are all indicators of the standards it applies to patient care. When an employee responsible for compliance alleges he was pushed out for doing his job, and when ownership is accused of trying to circumvent workers' compensation obligations, those allegations deserve public attention.

The Rigali case and the Hickman case involve different plaintiffs, different time periods, and different categories of claims. But they share common defendants, overlapping personnel, and a consistent theme:

Allegations that the people running The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center prioritized self-interest over the obligations they owed to the people in their care, whether employees or patients.

DISCLOSURE AND LEGAL NOTICE

Behind The Pointe is published by Verdict Public Relations, LLC, a public relations company owned and operated by the plaintiff in Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669 (Los Angeles Superior Court). All content on this site is published at the direction of, and reflects the editorial perspective of, the plaintiff in that action. This site represents one party's perspective on pending civil litigation. This is disclosed so that readers may evaluate the content with full knowledge of its source and make their own independent judgments.

Certain articles on this site reference or discuss press releases distributed by Verdict Public Relations, LLC through third-party newswire services, including Access Newswire. Where such press releases have appeared on media platforms (including but not limited to the Associated Press, USA Today, Yahoo Finance, and Digital Journal), those appearances reflect paid press release distribution through a newswire service, not independent editorial coverage or endorsement by those outlets. This distinction is disclosed for transparency.

Where this blog references court filings, pleadings, or other official records, such content constitutes a fair and true report of public judicial proceedings within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 47(d). All factual statements regarding the litigation are based on and limited to information contained in publicly filed court documents. Any factual claim that is attributed to a complaint, motion, opposition, or other court filing reflects the contents of that filing as publicly recorded and does not represent an adjudicated finding, judicial determination, or independently verified fact unless expressly stated otherwise.

All other content on this site, including analysis, commentary, characterization, and editorial framing, constitutes protected opinion on matters of public concern, including patient safety, regulatory oversight, and accountability in the addiction treatment industry. Such statements reflect the subjective views and interpretation of the publisher, are not assertions of independently established fact, and are intended to be understood as opinion and commentary within the meaning of the First Amendment and Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying public records and form their own conclusions.

No statement on this site should be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing, an adjudication of liability, or a determination of fault by any court or governmental body. All individuals and entities referenced herein are presumed innocent of any allegations unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise. The litigation referenced on this site is pending and unresolved. The claims asserted in the referenced court filings are allegations only.

Where this site references government reports, audits, regulatory data, or publicly available licensing records, such content constitutes reporting on matters of public concern and does not relate to any specific pending litigation unless expressly stated.

The publisher reserves all rights and defenses under the First Amendment, the California Constitution, and California's Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16), including the right to seek recovery of attorney's fees and costs in response to any action targeting the content of this blog. Any legal action arising from or relating to the content of this site shall be subject to these protections.

Nothing on this site constitutes legal, medical, or professional advice. Court filings referenced on this site are available through the Los Angeles Superior Court civil case access portal using Case No. 25SMCV04669. Readers are encouraged to review all underlying records independently before forming any conclusions.

For corrections or inquiries: pr@verdictpublicrelations.com