WWE Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed

WWE HQ logo WWE Corporate Headquarters

A former WWE employee who sued the company for alleged racial discrimination has withdrawn said lawsuit of her own volition.

Britney Abrahams was hired to be a writer for the company’s creative team. But during her two-year stint in that role, she claimed to have witnessed or heard proposals for highly objectionable storyline pitches involving various wrestlers in the company.

In particular, Abrahams alleged that some gimmick ideas presented either to her directly or that she discussed with others in WWE’s creative team include:

  • Apollo Crews having a Nigerian accent (which she objected to but the gimmick eventually made television)
  • Mansoor being behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
  • Shane Thorne adopting a crocodile hunter-type gimmick that hunts people instead of crocs, and that one of these targets would be Reggie

Abrahams claims that her concerns surrounding these and other similar issues were ignored. Then in 2022, she was fired for allegedly taking a commemorative WrestleMania 38 chair.

Britney Abrahams has the authority to revisit the lawsuit against WWE in the future if she chooses

According to a report on the court filing, Abrahams’s lawsuit has been dismissed by Abrahams herself but has not been dropped. This means that she lawsuit could be reopened in the future if the plaintiff so chooses.

The exact verbiage of the dismissal reads as follows:

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiff Britney Abrahams, by and
through her attorneys, THE COCHRAN FIRM, hereby gives notice that the above captioned action
is voluntarily discontinued without prejudice as to all claims and causes of action against
defendants CHRIS DUNN, individually, RYAN CALLAHAN, individually, JENIFFER
PEPPERMAN, individually, CHRISTINE LUBRANO, individually, MIKE HELLER,
individually, VINCE MCMAHON, individually, STEPHANIE MCMAHON, individually, with
each party bearing that party’s own attorney’s fees and costs. Dismissal is proper under this section
because the Defendants have not yet answered the complaint in this matter.”

h/t Fightful