Native costume designer on Killers of the Flower Moon sues Apple over awards exclusion, discrimination

Native American costume designer Kristi Marie Hoffman sued Apple on Wednesday, claiming that she was excluded from awards consideration for her work on Killers of the Flower Moon, allegedly as retaliation for her complaints of racial discrimination on set.

Hoffman, who was credited as an assistant costume designer, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, and alleged that she completed “most of the research and costume design for the film,” in particular those worn by the Osage actors.

Hoffman has also claimed that she designed the jacket worn by Leonardo DiCaprio, who played Ernest Burkhart, which she said “garnered much praise for its authenticity and originality”.

Despite her work, Hoffman said that her contributions were “completely ignored” and she was excluded from receiving credit at the Academy Awards and the Costume Designers Guild Awards.

Killers of the Flower Moon was nominated for 10 Oscars, seven Golden Globe Awards and three SAG Awards, several of these for best costume design, and also received a nomination from the Costume Designers Guild (CDG) for excellence in a period film.

The Western true-crime thriller is an adaption of David Grann’s 2017 non-fiction book of the same name, which follows the Osage Indian murders of the 1920s.

According to the lawsuit, Hoffman was initially listed alongside the lead costume designer Jacqueline West and identified as the first assistant costume designer when the nominations for the Costume Designers Guild Award were announced.

However, she was allegedly removed at West’s request and the credit was applied to all assistant costume designers, including those in secondary roles.

When Hoffman challenged the decision, the CDG found that the removal was “improper.”

However, Hoffman believes her removal was in retaliation for her filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint that was settled in December 2022 over racial discrimination she allegedly faced on the set that “affected her mentally and emotionally.”

“Since her EEOC Complaint, Hoffman has been targeted through elimination efforts by Defendants for her contributions to the film by Defendants’ promotion of West and O ‘Keefe for her efforts,” the lawsuit states.

Hoffman has sued Apple, the Costume Designers Guild, and Jacqueline West, the costume designer who hired her, in her lawsuit.

The lawsuit states that Hoffman was brought on the project because West wanted someone with the requisite cultural competency and ensure that Native Americans were represented among the crew.

“Hoffman, who has been in the television and film industry since around 2004 and has contributed to many productions, poured her heart into KOTFM as a film about Native Americans to which she could relate as a Native herself,” the lawsuit states.

Hoffman endured discriminatory conduct on the set of KOTFM, as she was subsequently discredited for her work during the film’s promotion and release and targeted with ads celebrating West and O’Keefe for the results of her hard work.”

Further, the lawsuit claims that Hoffman was deliberately overlooked as the film’s costume work was promoted only by West and consultant Julie O’Keefe, with no mention of Hoffman.

“Throughout the multitude of award nominations for KOTFM, Apple teamed up with West and CDG to promote the film and its costume design,” the lawsuit said.

“Despite Hoffman being the primary ACD and completing most of the research and costume design for the film, the Defendants not only specifically excluded her involvement in its promotion but also completely ignored her work and instead represented to the public at large that the costume design work, her work, was the product of West and a consultant on the film, Julie O’Keefe.”

The Independent has reached out to Apple Studios for a comment.

Hoffman, who has been part of the industry since 2004 and worked on 2016’s Captain America: Civil War and 2015’s The Revenant, has brought claims for breach of contract, false advertising, retaliation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction against further promotion of the film.