Harvey Weinstein (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Shortly after the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, I wrote two articles (here and here) discussing whether he could be successfully sued for the allegations against him. One of the difficulties for potential plaintiffs I pointed out was that many of the women making the allegations did not have an employment relationship with Weinstein or his company, which would prevent them from taking advantage of most state and federal anti-harassment laws.
Sandeep Rehal does not have that problem.
Most Law Firms’ AI Strategies Have a Big Blind Spot. Here’s How One Am Law 200 Firm is Solving It.
Most law firms, big and small, that have adopted AI are making the same mistake: they bought a tool for their lawyers and called it a strategy.
According to her two-count complaint filed in the Southern District of New York on January 25, 2018, Ms. Rehal worked for Weinstein’s company for over two years (from 2013 to 2015). She alleges that during her employment, she was subjected to “incessant harassment” by Weinstein, and that the harassment was known to the company and its human resources department. She claims that the harassment became so severe that she had to resign when she reached “an emotional breaking point.”
Ms. Rehal alleges some pretty bad conduct. She claims that she “was required to be involved in and aware of the preparations for, and clean up after, Harvey Weinstein’s extremely prolific sexual encounters.”
More specifically, she alleges that: (1) she had to take down dictation of emails from Weinstein while he was naked; (2) she had to maintain a list of his sexual partners; (3) she had to manage his stock of erectile dysfunction medication (and purportedly got a $500 bonus for finding a new supplier); (4) she had to clean up bodily fluids on the couch in Weinstein’s office after his sexual encounters “three or so times a week”; (5) and she had to pick up his used condoms. She also claims that critical documents relating to the case have been destroyed.
According to Deadline, a spokesperson for Weinstein is quoted as saying, “Mr. Weinstein categorically denies these claims and his lawyers will respond in the appropriate legal forum with evidence proving they are untrue.”
The New Way Litigators Handle Depositions Applies AI Every Step Of The Way
Depositions by Filevine help with scheduling, tracking goals, and trial prep.
The defendants in the case are The Weinstein Company LLC, The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, Harvey Weinstein, Robert Weinstein (a director and co-chair of the company), and Frank Gil, the Senior Vice President of Human Resources during Ms. Rehal’s tenure.
Ms. Rehal’s claims are both brought under the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction since Ms. Rehal is a California resident while the individual defendants are from New York and the corporate defendants are principally located in New York. (It seems likely that the claims are raised under New York City’s Human Rights Law as opposed to federal law because the statute of limitations under the local law is three years, making Ms. Rehal’s timely on the face of the complaint.)
Some people may be surprised that a company director and HR representative are included as individual defendants in the case. This, however, is not uncommon in employment litigation. Individuals are sometimes included as defendants to use their potential personal liability as leverage in settlement negotiations. Obviously, individual defendants are usually more likely to push hard for a settlement because their personal assets are on the line. Employment plaintiffs’ attorneys will therefore sometimes use this to their advantage.
If Weinstein’s representative’s statement that Weinstein will provide “evidence proving [that the allegations] are untrue” comes to pass, it will be interesting to see what testimony and evidence comes to light in the case related to this case and possibly others. If the case proceeds on its merits, Ms. Rehal, Weinstein, and many others will be deposed, and that testimony will provide a lot of insight into what went on behind the scenes with Weinstein and his company and flesh out a lot of the allegations that have been made public in recent months.
It’s going to take many months (and maybe years) before we see a resolution to this and the other lawsuits against Weinstein and his company, assuming it’s not settled prior to resolution on its merits. I’ll continue to provide further updates later in the case and others as they unfold.
Evan Gibbs is an attorney at Troutman Sanders, where he primarily litigates employment cases and handles traditional labor matters. Connect with him on LinkedIn here, or e-mail him here. (The views expressed in this column are his own.)