Canadian actor's suit against Weinstein and assistant must proceed, judge rules

Judge dismisses former assistant’s challenge to lawsuit, which claims she knew of Weinstein’s predation and helped facilitate attacks

A Canadian judge has rejected a bid to dismiss an anonymous actor’s $4m sexual assault lawsuit against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, his former assistant and two entertainment companies.

In a ruling released on Friday, the Toronto judge Patrick Monohan dismissed a challenge to the actor’s lawsuit filed by Weinstein’s former assistant Barbara Schneeweiss which argued that the allegations concerning her had expired under Ontario statute of limitations laws.

The lawsuit by a Canadian actor and model, filing her case as Jane Doe in a Toronto court, claims the disgraced producer twice assaulted her in 2000.

On one occasion, Weinstein allegedly “pushed her onto the bed”, partially undressed himself and “forced down her skirt and held her down by her wrists”. While holding her down, Weinstein allegedly performed oral sex on her without her consent.

The claim, first reported by the Toronto Sun in November, described Weinstein as a “serial sexual predator who, by the time of the assaults on [Doe], had well-developed methods for targeting young actors and luring them into situations that he considered optimal for sexually harassing and assaulting them.”

Weinstein has consistently denied claims of non-consensual sexual contact leveled by more than 60 women.

In addition to Weinstein, The Weinstein Company, Miramax, its then-corporate parent Disney, the lawsuit included Schneeweiss, who was then Weinstein’s assistant and who, the suit claims, knew of Weinstein’s sexual predation and helped facilitate the attacks.

Soon after meeting Weinstein in Toronto, the lawsuit claimed, Schneeweiss had called to tell her that the producer was impressed by her talent and wanted to have a breakfast meeting at the Sutton Place Hotel “to discuss her career and potential opportunities with Miramax”.

The lawsuit claims that Schneeweiss met her at the hotel restaurant and explained that producer was on a call in his suite and the meeting had been moved upstairs. “Jane Doe” then followed her to Weinstein’s suite where they discussed her career and experience while Schneeweiss took notes.

Then the producer then dismissed his assistant. “Once alone with Doe, Weinstein announced, ‘I like massages. What do you think about massages?’” The first assault proceeded from there, it is claimed.

Later, Weinstein insisted there had been a misunderstanding. When Jane Doe returned, Schneeweiss met her, took her upstairs again where Weinstein allegedly “threw his weight onto her and tried to stick his tongue down her throat”.

But Justice Monohan rejected Schneeweiss’s statute of limitations argument and ruled that the allegations against her are clearly related to an alleged sexual assault – which carries no statute of limitations. Monohan said he was “not persuaded” to change or dismiss any part of a lawsuit.

The ruling comes days after New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, filed a lawsuit against Weinstein, his brother Bob Weinstein, and their film production company alleging serious violations of civil rights, human rights and state business laws.

Scheniderman, who called on potential buyers of the Weinstein Company’s film library and real estate assets to establish a dedicated victim’s compensation fund, said his office had “never seen anything as despicable”.

Among the claims in the 39-page complaint, New York prosecutors allege that, at Weinstein’s direction, the company hired one group of female employees whose primary job was to accompany Weinstein to events and to facilitate sexual conquests. The entourage was known as Weinstein’s “wing women”.

A group of assistants, the complaint alleges, was allegedly forced to facilitate Weinstein’s sexual conquests, and to follow through on his promise of employment opportunities to women who met with Weinstein’s favor. This compelled service “demeaned and humiliated them, contributing to the hostile work environment”, the complaint said.

Beyond the attorney general’s lawsuit, Weinstein is subject to criminal investigations in four separate jurisdictions – New York, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles and London – stemming from multiple rape and sexual assault claims.

The pattern of alleged sexual coercion and conspiracy has contributed to efforts to bring class-action claims under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) anti-racketeering statutes typically used to bring organised crime bosses to justice.

In December, six women filed a lawsuit alleging that coordinated efforts by Weinstein, The Weinstein company, Miramax and others to cover up his sexual abuse amounted to racketeering. But according to the University of Minnesota law professor and Rico expert, Jeff Grell, Weinstein’s alleged crimes do not qualify under Rico laws.

Nor, Grell says, does the New York civil rights action make a Rico prosecution any more likely.

The problem with bringing a Rico claim against Weinstein is that the law does not allow for personal injury claims, only economic losses or damages to business or property.

“The fundamental problem is that these women were [allegedly] battered, meaning they were touched without their consent, assaulted, or threatened to be touched without their consent, and that’s a very basic personal injury claim,” Grell says.

To make a federal Rico claim they would have to show that Weinstein destroyed their careers because they would not consent to his advances, Grell says.

“They would have to prove that but for Harvey Weinstein’s retribution, they would have been successful. That’s a very difficult thing to prove because there are lots of factors that go into making a Hollywood starlet.”

The true purpose of bringing a Rico claim, Grell says, “is to put pressure on people to settle”.