What was the final disposition of Alexia Palmer’s lawsuit against Trump Model Management?
Executive summary
A federal judge dismissed Alexia Palmer’s lawsuit against Trump Model Management in March 2016, finding she had not produced sufficient evidence to support claims that the agency defrauded her or owed back pay; the court also said some claims were brought under the wrong legal theory and should have been pursued through administrative channels first (Judge Analisa Torres) [1] [2]. Palmer’s legal team pursued follow-on administrative complaints and reported appeals, but later filings with the Department of Labor were dismissed or time-barred, leaving the federal-court dismissal as the operative disposition [3] [4].
1. Background: the allegations that kicked off the case
Alexia Palmer, a Jamaican-born model who signed with Trump Model Management beginning in 2011, alleged in an October 2014 complaint that the agency promised a $75,000-a-year salary but paid her only a few thousand dollars over the contract term—figures reported variously as $3,880.75 or roughly $3,880 to $4,980 in media accounts—and that the agency withheld large portions of earnings as “expenses” while allegedly misrepresenting pay to obtain a visa [5] [2] [6]. The complaint sought substantial back pay and pressed broader claims that the agency used visa programs to bring foreign models to the United States under false pretenses [1] [2].
2. The federal ruling: dismissal and its core grounds
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres granted defendants’ motions to dismiss in March 2016, ruling that Palmer had failed to show she was misled or owed back pay and that she had not provided the factual detail the court required—such as quantifying hours worked—necessary to sustain minimum-wage or wage-theft claims in federal court [1] [2]. The judge also held that Palmer had invoked RICO and other federal statutes inappropriately and that, for immigration-related pay claims, the proper procedural avenue would typically be the Department of Labor or state court rather than the chosen federal causes of action [2] [6].
3. Aftermath: administrative filings, appeals, and limits of relief
Following the dismissal, Palmer’s counsel said they would pursue complaints with the Department of Labor and appeal the federal ruling; reporting shows a DOL complaint was filed but later dismissed as untimely, and Palmer’s lawyer indicated an appeal of the dismissal was contemplated, though the federal dismissal remained the headline outcome [3] [4]. Some outlets note the federal dismissal was without prejudice—meaning certain claims could be refiled in the proper forum—but the practical result was that the high-profile federal case did not proceed to discovery or trial against Trump Model Management in that court [7] [2].
4. Competing narratives and explicit agendas in reporting
Defendants’ counsel characterized the suit as “frivolous” and stressed that Palmer worked only a handful of days and was compensated for those bookings—an argument emphasized in Trump camp filings and press statements—while Palmer and her attorneys framed the case as emblematic of exploitation of foreign-born models and misuse of visa processes [8] [2]. Media outlets varied in emphasis: straight-news wires highlighted the dismissal and legal reasoning (Reuters, Fortune) [1] [6], advocacy-leaning pieces and commentary foregrounded broader allegations of industry mistreatment and immigration violations (Mother Jones) [4], and niche legal blogs suggested administrative remedies might still yield back wages if timely pursued [7] [9], reflecting differing editorial priorities and possible political stakes given Donald Trump’s public profile at the time [1] [8].
5. What the record does — and does not — finally resolve
The definitive public record from federal court is the March 2016 dismissal by Judge Torres for the procedural and evidentiary reasons the judge articulated, leaving no federal judgment finding Trump Model Management liable on Palmer’s claims [1] [2]. Reporting documents subsequent administrative activity and claims of appeal or follow-up complaints, some of which were dismissed or constrained by statutes of limitations, but available sources do not show a later federal victory for Palmer or a court-ordered award of back pay against Trump Model Management [3] [4]. The sources used here do not provide a final, separate decision overturning the March 2016 dismissal; absent additional filings or later judicial rulings in the supplied reporting, the March 2016 dismissal stands as the case’s final federal-court disposition in the public record cited [1] [2].