Robert De Niro’s ex-assistant is demanding his $6 million-dollar lawsuit against her be thrown out of court, denying she stole from the actor.
According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Graham Chase Robinson is asking a New York judge to throw out De Niro’s case and allow her separate $12 million case against him to move forward.
Robinson started working with De Niro at his company Canal Productions in 2008.Earlier this year, "The Irishman" star sued Robinson for $6 million dollars. He accused her of stealing from the company, using company money for dog sitting expenses and watching Netflix at work. De Niro accused his ex-employee of abusing her vacation days.
De Niro’s ex-assistant filed her own lawsuit in October. She accuses the actor of creating a toxic work environment. In her lawsuit, she accused him of urinating during phone calls and asking her to scratch his back.
She claimed to be the victim of “gratuitous unwanted physical contact” from De Niro. Robinson said he made her feel like an “office wife” and made “sexually-charged comments” to her. She accused him of not paying her overtime. The suit stated, “Robert De Niro is someone who has clung to old mores. He does not accept the idea that men should treat women as equals.”
In newly filed documents, Robinson is asking for De Niro’s case to either be stayed until the outcome of her case or be dismissed entirely.
She calls De Niro’s lawsuit “an act of unlawful retaliation” that is “Filled with false and prejudicial allegations.” Robinson says De Niro is lying about her inaccurately reporting her vacation days. She says, “The assertion that Ms. Robinson took nearly half a year’s worth of vacation days on the sly is inherently implausible.”
Robinson calls De Niro’s demand for $6 million in damages is “excessive.”
In regard to the Netflix bine-watching at work, “Furthermore, Canal fails to assert the factual predicates needed to support the allegations against Ms. Robinson relating to purported binge-watching. Notably, Canal does not, and cannot, allege that Ms. Robinson had exclusive access to the company’s Netflix account or that Ms. Robinson was the person who accessed the videos in question; instead, Canal only passively states that episodes of television “were accessed” on the relevant dates.”
A judge has yet to rule.