The Preserve & Mihailides’ Latest Attempts to End Sexual Harassment Case Denied by Federal Judge
GoLocalProv News Team
The Preserve & Mihailides’ Latest Attempts to End Sexual Harassment Case Denied by Federal Judge
As GoLocal was first to report in July 2023, Alison McDaniel, a former top executive at The Preserve claimed in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that she was repeatedly sexually harassed and publicly humiliated by the CEO and founder of the company, Mihailides.
In a recent court action, Judge Will Smith - after the court dismissed McDaniel’s breach of contract claim in April because of how “salary” was worded - denied the defendants’ argument that there was no longer any underlying contract, thus making McDaniel’s sexual harrassment claim under Rhode Island law null.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST“Ms. McDaniel’s breach of contract and RICRA sex discrimination claims remain intact, and the Court rejected Defendants’ repeated attempts to end the case on technicalities. The matter now moves toward trial on the merits,” Daniel’s attorney Mark Gagliardi told GoLocal.
“Defendants can’t defend this case on the merits, so they’ve tried to win on loopholes and technicalities,” he continued. “The Court made clear: loophole lawyering won’t win the day. Alison McDaniel looks forward to telling her story to a jury of her peers, and we are now seeking discovery of Defendants’ assets—including those of Paul Mihailides—to advance her claim for punitive damages.”
About Case
The Preserve Sporting Club & Residences claims it is the “most amenity-rich, life-enhancing resort oasis in the nation.”
It is located in Richmond, Rhode Island.
According to plaintiff McDaniel's lawsuit, she was hired for a top marketing position at The Preserve, and alleges she was then subject to nearly non-stop graphic sexual harassment.
“Mihailides hired McDaniel to perform the following job duties at The Preserve: Acting as a Spokesperson for The Preserve; acting in commercials; creating and appearing in videos for social media; providing her image for print, social media, advertisements, and magazines; acting as the social media manager; appearing at special events; appearing in videos for the Sporting Shoppe located on The Preserve property," and other marketing assignments, according to the lawsuit.
But McDaniel alleges in the lawsuit Mihailides and the company created a hostile abusive work environment in which Mihailides repeatedly sexually harassed her -- and retaliated against her when she rebuffed his advances.
“Beginning on McDaniel’s first visit to The Preserve, she became concerned with Mihailides’ behavior towards her, which she felt was flirty, overly-friendly, and inappropriate.
McDaniel expressed her concerns about Mihailides to a friend mutual to her and Mihailides, who assured her that Mihailides was ‘happily married’ and that she had nothing to worry about,” states the lawsuit.
McDaniel's attorney Mark Gagliardi when reached on Wednesday, said, "the allegations speak for themselves."
The suit by McDaniels claims that Mihailides repeatedly tried to kiss her and asked for sexual favors.
“During McDaniel’s employment at The Preserve, Mihailides subjected her to repeated sexual advances including attempts to kiss her on the mouth, requests for sexual favors, inappropriate touching, ogling with suggestive overtones, and verbal and physical harassment of a sexual nature, which were unwelcome and offensive to McDaniel,” said the lawsuit.
“On May 31, 2021, Mihailides told multiple guests at The Preserve that McDaniel was his ‘mistress,’ ‘future ex-wife,’ and ‘girlfriend.’ Also, Mihailides would not stop hanging on McDaniel’s body and tried to kiss her on the mouth multiple times. On June 7, 2021, when McDaniel texted Mihailides to thank him for something, he responded: ‘Do kisses come after that?’” according to the suit.
Latest in Court
According to Smith’s ruling on September 22, 2025, the defendants claimed that McDaniel’s Rhode Island Civic Rights Act discrimination charged failed to “plausibly allege…that a contract existed between the parties,” he wrote.
“This is so, they say, because McDaniel’s claims describe only an employer-employee contractual relationship, which is no longer a viable allegation following the Court’s decision that McDanieil performed work for defendants as an independent contractor," wrote Smith in his decision. “Therefore, irrespective of whether McDaniel worked for Defendants as an employee or an independant contractor, her Operative Complaint - and the undisputed facts of this case - plausibly support a finding that the parties maintained a contractual relationship of some sort.”
Smith therefore ruled “defendants are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings.”
McDaniel’s request to amend the complaint again - she had already done so twice - was denied along with an attempt to counter a motion by defendants.
Smith said a breach of contract claim by McDaniel “remains viable” but denied her request for a leave to amend the count. Her request to strike “certain language from Defendants’ legal memorandum, characterizing the language was ‘inflammatory, misleading, and prejudicial’ was also denied.
Defendants on Record
Attorney Nicole Benjamin with Adler Pollack & Sheehan, who is representing the defendants, provided the following statement:
The Preserve and Mr. Mihailides remain pleased that the Court granted summary judgment in their favor on eight of the 12 counts in Ms. McDaniel’s Second Amended Complaint and has now denied Ms. McDaniel’s request to amend yet again her complaint.
The Preserve and Mr. Mihailides have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s recent order on the grounds that Ms. McDaniel’s recent position is inconsistent with her prior allegations made under the penalty of perjury, as well as with the discovery that has already developed in this case. The Preserve and Mr. Mihailides look forward to an opportunity, at the appropriate time, to demonstrate that summary judgment should also enter in their favor on Plaintiff’s breach of contract and RICRA claims.
The Court’s recent ruling continues to reflect that Ms. McDaniel was not an employee of the Preserve, as she had claimed.
The Preserve remains confident that Ms. McDaniel cannot make out her few remaining claims in this case.
Should any of Ms. McDaniel’s claims survive summary judgment, the Preserve and Mr. Mihailides look forward to trying those claims to a jury, along with its 16 substantial counterclaims, none of which have been dismissed and which seek compensatory and punitive damages against Ms. McDaniel.