DDot Responds to EVEN’s Refutation of Discrimination Lawsuit

Photo Credit: Prateek Katyal

A representative for Damien “DDot” Washington issues a statement after EVEN claps back against prior statements regarding their ongoing litigation.

On the heels of the announcement of superfan platform EVEN’s partnership with Universal Music Group (UMG), the lawsuit filed against EVEN by former employee Damien “DDot” Washington has been getting a lot of attention. Yesterday, Digital Music News covered EVEN’s response to allegations made by Washington in a recent interview with World Music Views. Now, representatives for Washington have issued their own statement.

Washington’s lawsuit was filed amid an ongoing lawsuit filed against EVEN and Washington by Babygrande Records. Washington’s suit accuses EVEN and CEO Enrique “Mag” Rodriguez of discrimination, retaliation, labor violations, wrongful termination, and deliberate misclassification as an independent contractor. But a statement from PR firm CD Consulting on behalf of EVEN asserted that Washington’s claims directly contradict evidence on record.

“Mr. Washington’s false claims should be considered in the context of his own words when he was informed that he was named in the Babygrande lawsuit on October 30, 2024,” EVEN’s statement read. “Mr. Washington knows this text exchange is in the public record, and still filed this frivolous lawsuit. The facts will continue to demonstrate that all of Mr. Washington’s claims are baseless and false.”

Below is the full response from Washington’s camp:

“Recent public statements by EVEN and its representatives mischaracterize a single, out-of-context text exchange in an apparent attempt to distract from the substance of Mr. Washington’s federal complaint.

Notably, EVEN has not issued a clear, comprehensive denial of the allegations set forth in Mr. Washington’s complaint of discrimination and misclassifications, including alleged instances concerning data integrity, misrepresentations to investors and partners, or attempts to commit acts of violence against their competitors. Instead, the company has attempted to reframe the dispute through selective semantics and an incomplete portrayal of the public record.

For the avoidance of doubt, the text exchange EVEN highlights is dated October 30, 2024 and reflects Mr. Washington referencing his employment status at the time of the alleged Babygrande infringement incident (August 26, 2024), not a blanket admission about his status at all times. Any suggestion otherwise is misleading.

Moreover, the public docket (Docket 171) contains additional exhibits that EVEN’s representatives have omitted while portraying the record to the media. These exhibits include a screenshot taken October 2, 2024, in which Mag Rodriguez messaged Mr. Washington at 7:14 PM, ‘You cool with this pay as contractor thing or no,’ followed by a message at 7:17 PM stating: ‘$7,200 a month […] Extra .2% equity […] Full time […] Director of Business Development.’ These exhibits demonstrate the very timeline and classification issues that EVEN now attempts to obscure.

EVEN is once again grasping at straws to mischaracterize Mr. Washington’s quote that he was ‘randomly added’ to the lawsuit, remains consistent with his position documented on the Court docket, that he was misjoined in the Babygrande vs. Mag Rodriguez / EVEN infringement case.

Further, the same docket that EVEN’s representative references (Docket 129) as purportedly ‘contradicting’ Mr. Washington’s employment status includes Mr. Washington’s Director of Business Development agreement, executed in connection with the ‘full-time’ offer described above. That agreement was placed on the Babygrande docket by EVEN’s own attorneys. Accordingly, claims that this record ‘undermines’ Mr. Washington’s position are verifiably inaccurate and omit key context already in the public record.

Finally, EVEN’s current media narrative is contradicted by EVEN’s own attorneys, who endorsed that Mr. Washington’s involvement in the Babygrande case (Case 1:24-cv-06785) was inappropriate. In a letter submitted by EVEN’s attorneys supporting (Docket 99) Mr. Washington’s motion to dismiss, EVEN’s counsel expressly sought dismissal of all claims against Mr. Washington, stating:

‘For these reasons and those set forth in the Washington Motion to Dismiss, the EVEN Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss all claims against Mr. Washington with prejudice.’ — EVEN’s Attorney David Leichtman (June 30, 2025)

That formal court filing irreconcilably conflicts with later attempts to portray Mr. Washington as the ‘dead-center’ or ‘beating heart’ of that litigation.

Mr. Washington will address all matters in the appropriate forum: a court of law. This will be Mr. Washington’s final public clarification regarding EVEN’s shifting media narratives. He looks forward to vindication through the judicial process and encourages EVEN and Mag Rodriguez to focus on responding to the pending litigation rather than issuing misleading commentary to news outlets.”