Harvey Weinstein will have to face a sexual harassment claim from Ashley Judd despite the fact that the actress was never employed by the disgraced movie magnate. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California Civil Code § 51.9 covered their relationship enough to provide Judd with the ability to sue her for sexual harassment.
Judd alleges in his complaint that he became Weinstein’s victim when the movie tycoon sued him in a hotel room about 20 years ago. Judd says she only ran away after giving in to a deal that would let him touch her if he won an Academy Award. Later, Judd says he was in serious discussion for a big role in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, but that opportunity was torpedoed after Weinstein or someone at Miramax told the director it was a “nightmare” to work with.
In September 2018, a federal judge allowed Judd to file a libel claim, but not a sexual harassment claim, because according to the judge’s interpretation of §51.9, the statute did not apply to relationships focused on prospective employment. .
The case then went to the Ninth Circuit, which carefully analyzed California’s attempt to codify women’s right to work without unwanted sexual advances. Did that law encompass Hollywood’s so-called “casting couch,” which means requesting sexual favors for roles in movies and TV shows? And how do you make sense of California’s recent #MeToo amendment, which added “director or producer” to the types of occupations explicitly mentioned in the statute as covered? Did the addition address a deficiency in the law, as Weinstein’s attorneys argued, or did it simply clarify the scope of the law, as Judd put it?
“In summary, we conclude that, as alleged, section 51.9 clearly encompasses the Judd-Weinstein relationship, which was’ substantially similar ‘to the’ business, service, or professional relationship.[s]”listed in the statute,” writes Judge of the Ninth Circuit Mary Murguia. “As in the relationships listed, their relationship consisted of an inherent power imbalance in which Weinstein was in a unique position to exercise coercion or influence over Judd by virtue of his professional position and influence as one of the best Hollywood producers. No we have difficulty concluding that the California Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion, obviating the need to certify the question. Therefore, the district court erred when it dismissed Judd’s claim of sexual harassment under section 51.9. “
Read the full review here.
“This is an important victory not only for Ms. Judd but for all victims of sexual harassment in professional relationships,” said Ted Boutrous, Gibson Dunn’s partner representing Judd. “The court correctly holds that California law prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation by film producers and others in powerful positions, including outside of the workplace context, and we look forward to continuing this claim against Mr. Weinstein at trial “
Weinstein’s attorney, Phyllis Kupferstein, responded: “We are pleased that both Ms. Judd and Mr. Weinstein have their day in court, where we hope the truth will come to light. The slightest investigation of the events will show that Mr. Weinstein also did not defame Judd, hinder or interfere with his career, and he certainly never retaliated against her and, in fact, had nothing to retaliate in. Instead, Mr. Weinstein defended his work and approved his casting for two of his movies. “
This article originally appeared on THR.com.
