TL;DR: Yes. Yes, he is.
Long version:
Stebbins v. Mid States Promotions
Stebbins v. Mid States Promotions (3:10-cv-03041, District Court, Western District of Arkansas) is a case against a wrestling promoter. The alleged cause is:
The owner upheld his decision to refuse to consider for employment, despite his original reason being illegal.
And what is the source for the claim that the original decision was illegal? “Trust me, bro.” The correct way to challenge an illegal decision is to challenge the decision itself, not sue over a refusal to reconsider it which, on its face, requires the court to accept the premise that the decision was illegal (the logical fallacy of begging the question).
The requested remedy is “reimburse the lost profits I have suffered due to loss of reputation in the wrestling business“. Obviously, Stebbins must have had a soundly-reasoned sum in mind, based on his age and experience. His lawsuits against the University of Arkansas in 2007 suggest that he would have been 18 or 19 at the time, so in May 2010 he would have been no more than 21 when Mid-States Promotions turned him down. Based on his lack of college education, his status as an unemployed man unable to pay his debts and living with his parents, whose last job (from which he was fired after almost no time) paid $674 per month, little enough that he qualified for food stamps, something of the order of $50,000 would seem reasonable, right? Oh, wait, no, how about $306,000,000.00? That’s just a little above the expected lifetime career earnings for a high school graduate.. 150-200 times the lifetime average earnings, to be precise. Based on “loss of reputation” in an industry where he has no reputation.
Arguendo, though, let’s bypass this phase of Stebbins’ life, when he was still busy stabbing his family and threatening another Virginia Tech incident.
Stebbins v. Bobanks Holdings
Stebbins v. Bobanks Holdings LLC is an Arkansas case relating to Stebbins’ short-lived career in domestic care. He’s proud of the fact that he passed a urine drugs test, and describes it in some detail. Good job, Stabby. He was offered a total of four shifts, apparently via a scheduling app.
The first he accepted was for Aug 30-31, 2025; he never worked this shift because he was fired on Aug 29. The second was released to the app on 21 August, he claimed it, but it was reallocated because the client preferred a female caregiver. Or, as Stabby puts it, “[t]here was no indication that the client’s preference was based on anything other than misandry.” He then accepted a shift on 28 August, but was again advised that the shift had been canceled due to the client’s preference for a female caregiver.
In a move that will surprise absolutely nobody, he “became admittedly frustrated”. We know Stabby well enough by now to understand what happens when he is “frustrated”. An email claiming sex discrimination and closing with “this is bullshit”.
Now, take a step back. Clients of a domestic care company are likely to be elderly and vulnerable. Would your grandma be comfortable with a male caregiver? Maybe, maybe not, but I pretty much guarantee that the older the client, the less likely they are to accept a caregiver of the opposite sex for anything even remotely personal. The fact that the schedulers were reassigning these shifts suggests that the company had an established process that routinely accepted such preferences.
But no. Stebbins is the Main Character. This is targeted harassment against him, based on his protected status as a biological male. And the only reason he could possibly have been fired was that he challenged their sexist policies – he could not posibly have engaged in one of his signature violent expletive-laden outbursts. Arkansas is an at-will state. Republicans call this “right to work”, meaning the right to be fired from your work for no reason at all.
As compensation for the loss of his likely minimum-wage job on the flimsy grounds that some female clients preferred a female caregiver, and the company routinely accommodated them, he sued for (drum roll) the equivalent of 40 hours per week for five years, $114,000, plus $900,000 in punitive damages.
The amount Stabby was entitled to, probably uncontestable, was $50 for his two days of training. He was registered on their app from “the week of 14 August” (a Thursday), after his training, until 29 August, around two weeks. And based on that extensive experience of the company, he had a meltdown when they didn’t move everyone else’s schedule around to accommodate him. The case has settled now, and we will never know, but it is most likely that the settlement was around this number.
The Bobanks case was late 2025, when Stebbins was a grown-ass man probably approaching 30. And yet he still thinks the world revolves around him, loses his temper when he doesn’t get his way, and acts surprised when he is completely unable to hold down any customer-facing job. The issue is not that he has Aspergers. The issue is that he is obnoxious.
Is David Anthony Stebbins, aka Acerthorn, an arrogant, entitled asshole? Yes. Yes, he is.
Deucerthorn 