A Tennessee woman has sued MGM Resorts International, alleging the company failed to protect her from a spa massage therapist who sexually assaulted her during an appointment at the MGM Grand Spa in Las Vegas on September 7, 2024. The woman says she woke up to repeated digital penetration by the therapist, Steven Thomas, after falling asleep during the massage, and that she had previously received massages from him without incident during earlier stays at the resort.
According to the lawsuit, detailed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the woman's husband had scheduled the appointment, and spa staff instructed her to lie face-down on the massage bed after recommending she wear no undergarments during the session. She says she left the room after asking to use the restroom and reported the alleged assault to the spa's front desk. A Las Vegas Justice Court judge later ordered Thomas to stay away from her, the paper reported, and Thomas has not been named as a defendant in the civil case.
Criminal Case Took Several Turns
Thomas was initially charged with felony sexual assault, according to the Review-Journal's reporting on the case, authored by Casey Harrison. He pleaded guilty in July 2025 to open or gross lewdness, a gross misdemeanor, before withdrawing that plea and instead pleading no contest to misdemeanor battery in November 2025, per the same report.
Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy records shed more light on the terms of that original plea deal. Board documents from June 2025 show Thomas's initial February 2025 agreement for gross misdemeanor open or gross lewdness specified the charge would convert to misdemeanor battery upon successful completion of probation, a term that also required sex offender registration, according to the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy.
State Regulators Found Misconduct, Then Rejected His Appeal
Separate from the criminal case, the state board held its own disciplinary hearing in May 2025 and determined by a preponderance of evidence that Thomas committed sexual misconduct during the September 2024 massage, according to board records. In a June 2025 appeal letter to the board, Thomas wrote that he had discarded his massage license on his attorney's advice, acknowledged his court plea, and promised he would never practice massage again, the same board filing shows.
That appeal did not succeed. The board formally reviewed and unanimously denied Thomas's petition for reconsideration in August 2025, according to draft meeting minutes from the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy, leaving the disciplinary finding against him intact despite his abandonment of the license.
Woman Accuses MGM of Ignoring Warning Signs
The lawsuit names MGM Resorts International, MGM Grand Hotel LLC, and MGM Grand Spa and Salon as defendants, and alleges the company had actual or constructive notice that spa employees, particularly massage therapists, had sexually assaulted MGM spa guests in the past. The woman further alleges MGM failed to adequately train employees on professional etiquette, boundary-setting and spa services, failed to conduct a reasonable and adequate investigation of employees including Thomas, and failed to monitor him during her appointment.
She accuses MGM of malice, oppression and conscious disregard for guests' safety, security and well-being, and alleges the company continued employing workers despite past behavior, tendencies and histories that should have warned it they might harm someone on the property. An MGM spokesperson did not immediately provide comment, and the woman's attorneys also did not comment, according to the Review-Journal report. Thomas himself did not provide comment either.
What the Lawsuit Is Seeking
The woman is seeking past and future damages exceeding $15,000, along with special and exemplary damages to be determined by the court, plus legal fees. She says the alleged assault caused her to incur medical-care and treatment expenses and to lose wages and earning capacity. Because the damages sought exceed $15,000, the case falls within the mandatory jurisdiction of Nevada's District Courts, such as Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, rather than a lower Justice Court, according to the Eighth Judicial District Court.
The Legal Standard MGM Will Face
Under Nevada Revised Statute 41.745, employers are not civilly liable for an employee's intentional torts unless the conduct occurred during assigned tasks and was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, according to Justia Law. That standard traces back to a 2015 Nevada Supreme Court precedent, Anderson v. Mandalay Corp., in which the court held that a Las Vegas hotel resort could be held vicariously liable under the same statute for an employee's sexual assault of a guest if the conduct was reasonably foreseeable given the employee's job duties and access to guest rooms, as explained by the Nevada Appellate Report.
That foreseeability question is likely to be central to the case moving forward, since establishing what prior notice MGM had regarding spa employee misconduct is critical under Nevada law to hold a resort corporate entity vicariously liable, or negligent in retention and supervision. Separately, the woman's ability to bring the suit at all reflects a 2023 change in state law: Nevada's Senate Bill 129 eliminated the civil statute of limitations for adult survivors of sexual assault, permitting such lawsuits to be filed at any time regardless of when the assault occurred, according to the Van Law Firm.
Regulatory Oversight of Massage Therapists
Nevada's licensing rules also impose reporting duties on individual practitioners. Under Nevada Administrative Code 640C.090, licensed massage therapists must notify the state board in writing within 10 business days of any arrest, criminal charge, or civil malpractice lawsuit filed against them, per the Legal Information Institute. State regulators separately hold explicit statutory authority under Nevada Revised Statute 640C.720 to temporarily suspend a massage therapist's license if the practitioner is charged with or cited for a sexual offense, according to Justia Law.
