A Pasadena appeals court ruled Wednesday that Ashley Judd can pursue a sexual harassment claim against now-imprisoned former producer Harvey Weinstein, overturning a lower court’s decision to toss the allegation from the actress’ defamation and retaliation lawsuit.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the relationship between Judd and Weinstein “consisted of an inherent power imbalance wherein Weinstein was uniquely situated to exercise coercion or leverage over Judd by virtue of his professional position and influence as a top producer in Hollywood,” according to the 16-page ruling.
Two years ago, a judge dismissed the sexual harassment claim after finding that a California state law — under which the claim was brought — did not apply in Judd’s case. The judge determined, however, that the “Double Jeopardy” actress could proceed with allegations that the disgraced producer smeared her reputation and ruined her chance for a role in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.
The California Civil Code statute was changed to specifically include directors and producers, but the judge said the revision could not be applied retroactively.
The appeals panel held that whether Judd and Weinstein’s relationship was in fact an employment relationship was a question for the lower court, and returned the case to a Los Angeles federal courtroom.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Phyllis Kupferstein, said “the truth will come to light” in court.
“The most minimal investigation of the events will show that Mr. Weinstein neither defamed Ms. Judd nor hindered or interfered with her career, and certainly never retaliated against her and indeed had nothing to retaliate for,” the defense attorney said. “Instead, Mr. Weinstein championed her work and approved her casting for two of his movies.”
Kupferstein said Weinstein fought for Judd “as his first choice for the lead role” in “Good Will Hunting,” and flew her to New York to be considered for the part.
“Thereafter, Ms. Judd was hired for two of Mr. Weinstein’s movies, `Frida’ in 2002 and `Crossing Over’ with Harrison Ford in 2009,” Kupferstein said. “In addition, the record on `Lord of the Rings’ will finally be made absolutely clear — that Mr. Weinstein had no authority over the project as it belonged to a different production company that had full staffing control of the film.”
Judd’s lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr., called the 9th Circuit ruling “an important victory not only for Ms. Judd but for all victims of sexual harassment in professional relationships.”
“The court correctly holds that California law forbids sexual harassment and retaliation by film producers and others in powerful positions, even outside the employment context, and we look forward to pursuing this claim against Mr Weinstein at trial,” he said.
In her April 2018 lawsuit, Judd alleges Weinstein made sexual advances toward her in 1997 at a Beverly Hills hotel while they were meeting to discuss potential film roles. She alleges that she managed to elude Weinstein by proposing a “mock contract” by falsely telling him she would let him touch her when she won an Oscar for one of his films.
During arguments in May before the appeals court, Boutrous argued that the statute at issue applied even without the new wording because it covered “business, service or professional relationships,” which aptly described Judd and Weinstein’s association in 1997.
Kupferstein countered that Judd had no professional relationship with her client at the time of the hotel meeting. Years earlier, Judd had worked on the movie “Smoke” made by Miramax Films, which was founded by Weinstein and his brother.
“The relationship has to be existing at the time of the harassment,” Kupferstein said, arguing that the “directors and producers” wording of the statute cannot be applied retroactively.
Boutrous suggested that most Hollywood actors had some sort of tie to Weinstein, simply due to his previous stature in the industry.
Judd “couldn’t sever her ties with Harvey Weinstein,” Boutrous argued. “He was the gateway to professional success for actors. He was still the overlord of the film industry.”
SAG-AFTRA, Hollywood’s biggest union, applauded the appellate decision affirming Judd’s right to pursue her lawsuit against Weinstein “for the sexual harassment and abuse he is alleged to have perpetrated against her.”
“The California Legislature took action to make sure that individuals like Ashley Judd, who may not be traditional employees, would have remedies against abusers, and that those abusers couldn’t escape responsibility based on technicalities related to employee status,” the union said in a statement. “The Ninth Circuit has rightly determined that statute means what it says, and that victims of harassment, abuse and assault will not be cut off from justice based on technical details of employee status.”
The union said it was “gratified that our amicus brief made a meaningful contribution to the decision, being explicitly cited by the court.”
Weinstein, 68, is currently serving a 23-year sentence in a prison near Buffalo, N.Y., for rape and sexual assault. He is facing five felony counts in Los Angeles involving alleged crimes with three women.
Judd was one of the first women to come forward with harassment allegations against him.