[ad_1]
The actress alleges she was nested for a role in "Lord of the Rings" after repelling Weinstein.
A California federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Ashley Judd could continue her lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein. However, it will only be able to prosecute claims of defamation and unlawful interference. A complaint of sexual harassment was rejected during the first iteration of the trial.
The actress alleges in her complaint that she became the victim of Harvey Weinstein when the film mogul asked him in a hotel room about 20 years ago. Judd says that she only escaped after accepting a market where she would let him touch her if she won an Oscar. Later, Judd says that she was in serious discussion for a big role in Peter Jackson the Lord of the Rings, but this opportunity was torpedoed after Weinstein or someone from Miramax told the director that she was a "nightmare" with which to work.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, one day after hearing oral argument on Weinstein's motion for dismissal, US District Judge Philip Gutierrez examined whether Judd had filed a lawsuit or whether his claims were time-barred.
The actress said she only learned she was nixed for a role in the Lord of the Rings after Jackson recounted what happened in a December 2017 interview. Although Weinstein argued that she was required to conduct a reasonable investigation, she replied that it was unlikely that A producer and a distributor of powerful films reveal something confidential and disrupt the relationship.
The judge writes that Judd only needs to make a plausible inference at this point, namely that she would have been unable to know Weinstein's statements about her in Jackson.
"At this stage, no evidence has been presented as to whether it is common in the industry that the actors are asking why they were not cast and no evidence has been presented as to whether Jackson and Walsh informed the complainant of the defendant's statements, asked them why he had not been the Lord of the Rings In reiterating the plaintiff's allegations as the Court stands at this stage, the Court concludes that it made a plausible conclusion that it would not have been able to inquire into the defendant's statements during the trial. period of prescription, even if it had conducted a diligent investigation. "
The judge also decided that Judd had adequately pleaded an application for defamation. Weinstein attempted to argue that, when he stated that he had had "bad experiences" with Judd, this amounted to an opinion without action.
Judd "asserts that she can prove that these statements are false because the defendant had no previous professional interaction with her and her two-day experience on the Miramax movie. Smoke (she alleges that she did not interacted with the defendant) was consistently positive, "writes the judge. The court agrees with the plaintiff. "
With respect to Judd's allegation of sexual harassment, the judge writes that he is skeptical that the law invoked (section 51.9 of the California Civil Code) "could ever apply to a relationship between a potential employer and a future employee ".
However, Gutierrez does not firmly decide whether a claim of this nature would steal. Instead, he looks at Judd's description of his only meeting with Weinstein to ostensibly discuss potential roles in movies, and finds that it does not fit the relationship type of someone providing professional services on a one-to-one basis. permed. At work.
"[Judd] states that the law was intended to cover harassment in "power relations", but the law does not use that term, "writes the judge, adding later:" A prospective employee usually gets the job after an interview or a series of interviews (and then becomes covered by the sexual harassment laws applicable to labor relations), or does not get the job, in which case the relationship ends. The temporary nature of a prospective employment relationship is qualitatively different from the often more permanent relationships with the categories of individuals explicitly listed in the law. "
Judd tried to position Weinstein's behavior as sexual harassment perpetrated by lawyers, doctors and teachers – professions referenced in the code – but the judge says she did not allege the same kind of job responsibilities from Weinstein.
Gutierrez notes that the law is not settled on this point. If this problem ends up being the subject of a call, it could become important and closely monitored in the #MeToo era.
Judd will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint to try again with his request for sexual harassment.
Update:
Theodore Boutrous Jr., Judd's attorney, commented, "We are very pleased that the District Court found that Ashley Judd could pursue his case against Harvey Weinstein and continue to assert the wrongs he had committed against so many people. other women. We are also pleased that the court has given us the opportunity to amend our complaint and adduce additional facts related to one of Ms. Judd's claims, and we will immediately go forward with Mr. M's testimony. Weinstein and look forward to proving a jury at trial that Mr. Weinstein defamed Ms. Judd, impaired her ability to make a living and engaged in illegal business practices. The law should not tolerate this abuse of power to harm the career of others. "
[ad_2]
Source link
