A judge has ordered Playboy Inc. and a former woman executive to try and mediate a resolution of her lawsuit in which she alleges that her 2025 firing was part of a calculated removal of female top leaders by a male-dominated hierarchy.
Allison M. Kopcha’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit additionally alleges discrimination, harassment and retaliation. On Monday, Judge Jon R. Takasugi directed the parties to engage in mediation and to complete it by Feb. 9, 2027. The judge also said he wants a status report five days before the hearing.
The judge also scheduled trial for May 3, 2027, in case mediation fails.
In their previous court papers, a Playboy attorney denied Kopcha’s allegations and said judgment should be entered in the company’s favor along with an award of attorneys’ fees. The Playboy lawyer additionally contends that Kopcha’s claims are subject to arbitration, that they are barred wholly or in part by the statute of limitations and that any actions taken involving her were done for legitimate reasons.
Kopcha, 54, first worked for Playboy from 1996 to 1998 in the international television and home video department and negotiated the company’s first DVD deal. She was rehired in January 2020 as executive vice president of global licensing and joint ventures, working in large part remotely from her New Jersey home.
Although Kopcha initially received praise and bonuses for her work, male executives later began minimizing her opinions, as well as excluding her from decision-making and senior staff meetings, the suit states.
Last summer, Playboy underwent a major strategic shift, including the announcement of plans to relocate its headquarters from Los Angeles to Miami.
“This decision was communicated primarily through the media, with little internal dialogue or transparency,” the suit filed last Sept. 16 states. “The lack of communication bred confusion and fear among employees, giving many the impression that they would all be replaced with Miami people.”
Kopcha told management that it was unsettling for her to learn about the relocation developments from the media and that she did not think it was too much to ask what was going on, according to her suit.
Kopcha did not get a response until a weekly virtual management meeting last Aug. 25 and with a human resources representative also present, Kopcha was terminated, according to the suit.
“Kopcha was extremely upset about her treatment and expressed dissatisfaction with how defendants’ managers used the company as a piggy bank to give themselves shares, jets and expensive offices, while making bad deals and saving on costs by cutting good people,” the suit states.
A company attorney present responded, “This is where we are,” according to the suit.