Niya Esperanza filed a sexual-harassment and retaliation complaint on Feb. 16 in California Superior Court, naming Trinity United Presbyterian Church and its pastor, Joel Mitchell, among the defendants. The suit, brought by attorneys at Levine Labor Law, is lodged in Orange County Superior Court and is currently listed as pending.
The complaint, filed in state court on Feb. 16, alleges that Esperanza, identified in the pleading as a former youth-ministry employee, was subject to repeated sexual harassment and stalking by the pastor named in the suit.
It further alleges that the church failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the misconduct and later retaliated against Esperanza when she reported the behavior.
A particularly serious allegation in the filing asserts that artificial-intelligence tools were used to create non-consensual nude images of the plaintiff.
The complaint groups a series of claims under employment, tort, and civil rights categories, including sexual- and gender-based harassment, retaliation, negligent hiring, defamation, employment discrimination, and related personal-injury counts.
The filing also lists “Does 1 to 50,” indicating unnamed additional defendants.
The core of the complaint is the plaintiff’s account of conduct she says occurred while employed in the church’s youth ministry.
According to the pleading, the pastor engaged in persistent unwanted contact and behavior that the plaintiff characterizes as stalking and sexually predatory.
The complaint alleges that, after she raised objections and reported the conduct internally, church officials moved to discipline or threaten her employment, effectively retaliating for her complaints.
The AI-image allegation describes the creation and dissemination of explicit images, the plaintiff says were produced without her consent and meant to humiliate and silence her.
As this is a civil employment action and remains at the allegation stage. The case will move through standard civil procedures: the defendants will be served, responses and possible demurrers or motions to strike may be filed, and discovery (document exchange, depositions) will follow.
If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, the case could proceed to trial. Damages and remedies in such cases, if a plaintiff prevails, , can include compensatory damages for emotional distress, lost wages, punitive damages in extreme cases, and injunctive relief such as workplace reforms, though the specific relief sought in the filing should be read in the complaint itself
Under California employment and civil rights law, employers and supervisors can be held liable for sexual harassment and retaliation when they fail to prevent or correct unlawful conduct or when they take adverse employment actions against employees for reporting harassment.
Claims alleging negligent hiring or supervision typically argue that the employer knew, or should have known, about a risk posed by a staff member and failed to act.
Allegations involving AI-generated non-consensual imagery raise novel questions about privacy and image-based abuse that courts and legislatures are only beginning to address, but such claims can intersect with defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and statutory protections against non-consensual pornography depending on the facts.
Esperanza is described in the court filing as a former youth-ministry employee. She has previously been identified in public materials as active in Christian youth work and social media; some reporting and viral posts from late 2025 also referenced a separate civil matter involving alienation-of-affection claims in another state, which appears factually distinct from the present
Orange County employment suit. Joel Mitchell is identified in church material as a pastor and as having served in youth ministry roles at the congregation named in the complaint.
Trinity United Presbyterian Church is a local congregation in Orange County that employs staff for youth programming. Levine Labor Law represents the plaintiff in the current action
The complaint is a public court filing that states the plaintiff’s allegations; as of the filing date the court record shows the case as pending, and no judicial finding has been made. The complaint itself does not constitute proof of wrongdoing.
At the time of filing, the court docket does not reflect a public, on-the-record response from the church or from Pastor Mitchell; any official statements from the defendants would be issued separately and may appear in later filings or press releases.
Key developments to monitor include any formal responses by the defendants (answers or motions), any request for temporary relief by the plaintiff, the scope and timing of discovery (which will surface documents and testimony), and whether the parties pursue mediation or settlement.
Given the allegations about AI-generated images, the case may also draw attention to how courts treat image-based harms created with new technologies.
This report is based on the court complaint filed Feb. 16, 2026, and reflects the plaintiff’s claims as stated in that document. Those claims remain allegations until proven in court or resolved by agreement.
Leave a Comment