Kylie Jenner's housekeeper locked in closet for over an hour

# **Kylie Jenner Faces Claim After Housekeeper Says She Was Locked Inside** The reality‑TV mogul is back in court, this time accused of creating a nightmare for one of her former staff.

Dinora Carolina Cabria Amaya, a housekeeper who began working in Jenner’s Los Angeles home in March 2025, filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court on November 5.

She alleges that, under the direction of a supervisor named Laura Dooley, she was forced into the celebrity’s private closet, locked inside for more than an hour, and left to suffer a panic attack while being mocked by her own manager.

The lawsuit further claims a pepper‑spray canister discharged into Amaya’s eyes while she was cleaning a laundry room drawer, causing lasting eye irritation and severe burning.

These incidents are part of a string of lawsuits that have been lodged against Jenner and her household staff in recent months, raising questions about the treatment of domestic workers employed by the ultra‑wealthy. The allegations are stark and visceral.

Amaya contends that she was told by Dooley to enter the closet with a passcode, only to find herself trapped inside when the door shut. When Amaya tried to call for help, Dooley allegedly laughed and told her to “wait” because no one else could get her out.

After an hour of isolation, a house staff member finally unlocked the closet. In a separate incident, Amaya reports that a pepper‑spray container was left unsecured, and the canister fired when she was organizing a drawer.

The spray hit her eyes directly, causing immediate burning, blurred vision, and a sand‑like sensation that persisted long after the event. Amaya’s complaint includes claims of disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and false imprisonment.

Her attorney, Della Shaker, argues that the case exposes a broader pattern of abusive practices against domestic workers in high‑profile households. ### Background & Context Kylie Jenner’s household has been a frequent target of legal disputes.

This is the fourth lawsuit filed in just seven months, following earlier claims that alleged discrimination and mistreatment of staff. Amaya began her employment in March 2025, but the contract was terminated on February 6, 2026.

In her filing, she details a pattern of behavior that she says forced her to endure physically demanding tasks without adequate support.

For instance, after reporting the pepper‑spray incident, Amaya says supervisors asked her to keep working on heavy lifting tasks, including moving mattresses, while still dealing with eye pain.

She also notes that another employee who had been assisting her was removed from the team, leaving her to complete the work alone. These details paint a picture of a workplace where safety concerns were ignored and staff were pressured to perform beyond their capacity.

The lawsuit outlines multiple grievances. Beyond the closet ordeal and pepper‑spray exposure, Amaya claims she was repeatedly told to leave Jenner’s residence or remain isolated because the celebrity did not want to see her.

The complaint also highlights the supervisor’s dismissal of Amaya’s pleas for help and medical attention. Amaya’s lawyer contends that the company failed to provide a safe working environment, paid wages late, and retaliated against her for reporting injuries.

She further claims that the case underscores a systemic issue: many domestic workers in affluent households fear speaking up, believing that their employers’ power deters them from seeking justice. ### What People Are Saying Amaya’s legal team has framed the case as a broader warning about the conditions domestic workers face in elite homes.

Attorney Della Shaker has stated that the lawsuit shines a light on how many workers are silenced by fear of losing their jobs or facing retaliation.

“The truth should never be buried behind wealth, fear, or silence,” she says, emphasizing the importance of protecting workers’ rights over protecting a public figure’s reputation.

Her comments suggest that the lawsuit is not just about a single incident, but about a pattern that needs to be addressed across the industry. On the other side, Jenner’s legal representative, Michael Rhodes, has responded sharply.

He has described the current claims as part of a series of lawsuits that he says were filed by the same attorney who previously sought to extract compensation from the celebrity for unrelated matters. Rhodes dismissed the allegations as “meritless” and threatened to defend Jenner vigorously.

He added that he would present the other side of the story once the case proceeds. This defensive posture reflects a common strategy among high‑profile individuals when faced with legal scrutiny, aiming to limit potential damage to their public image and business ventures.

The public reaction has been mixed. Some followers of Jenner’s brand criticize the lawsuits as attempts to tarnish her name, while others call for greater accountability and transparency in the employment practices of celebrity households.

The debate highlights a growing awareness of the vulnerabilities that domestic workers face, especially when working for people with significant influence and resources.

In an era where social media amplifies personal stories, the case could spark further discussions about labor rights and ethical hiring standards in the entertainment industry. ### What Happens Next The lawsuit is currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Both parties are likely to file motions, and the case will move toward discovery, where documents and evidence will be exchanged.

If the court finds merit in Amaya’s allegations, Jenner could face significant legal penalties, including financial damages, punitive fines, and possibly an injunction requiring changes to her household operations.

Even if the case does not result in a verdict against Jenner, the mere fact of a lawsuit can influence public perception and lead to increased scrutiny from regulators and advocacy groups. Beyond the immediate legal implications, the case could have broader repercussions for the entertainment industry.

Other high‑profile households may review their employment contracts and safety protocols to avoid similar litigation. Labor advocates may use the case as a rallying point for campaigns to improve working conditions and protections for domestic workers nationwide.

Additionally, media coverage—though not from the excluded outlets—could bring sustained attention to the issue, potentially affecting Jenner’s brand partnerships and sponsorship deals if the allegations resonate with consumers concerned about corporate social responsibility.

In the coming months, the focus will shift to how both sides build their cases. Amaya’s legal team will likely emphasize medical records, witness statements, and company policies to substantiate the claims.

Jenner’s attorneys will counter with evidence of compliance with labor laws, any safety measures in place, and explanations for the incidents. The courtroom will become the arena where a broader conversation about worker safety, corporate accountability, and the ethics of celebrity households unfolds.

The outcome of this lawsuit will not only determine liability for Kylie Jenner but could also set a precedent for how domestic workers are treated in households that wield considerable influence.

As the legal battle unfolds, the spotlight on the intersection of wealth, power, and labor rights will intensify, demanding a closer look at who truly benefits from the glamorous lives of the rich and famous.