© Jeenah Moon/The New York TimesA judge has cleared the way for a lawsuit that claims Harvey Weinstein, shown in June after he was charged with sex assault, violated a federal sex-trafficking statute.
The judge said the inducement to have sex with the Hollywood producer could fall under the sex-trafficking law, which makes it a crime to entice and force a person to commit a "commercial sex act" in return for something of value.
Kadian Noble, a British actress, accused Mr. Weinstein in a November lawsuit of sexually assaulting her after he lured her to his hotel room in Cannes, France, in 2014. Mr. Weinstein had promised the actress that they would review her movie reel, but he molested her and forced her to watch him masturbate in the bathroom, she said. Her lawyers argued the incident was legally the same as forced prostitution.
Mr. Weinstein's lawyers sought to have the suit thrown out. They argued that because nothing of value changed hands, the incident did not fit the definition of sex trafficking. They also contended the suit "would unfairly expand the federal sex trafficking statute to all sexual activity occurring between adults in which one party holds a superior position of power and influence."
But Judge Robert W. Sweet, of United States District Court in Manhattan, is allowing the lawsuit to proceed, noting Congress had intended an expansive definition of commercial sex act when it passed the law in 2003.
© Lucas Jackson/ReutersNoble, a British actress, is suing Mr. Weinstein, claiming he violated a federal sex-trafficking law.
Mr. Weinstein, a powerful movie producer "had recruited and enticed a young aspiring actress - with the promise of a film role and to use his considerable influence in the entertainment industry on her behalf, knowing that he would use means of force, fraud or coercion to cause her to engage in a sex act," Judge Sweet wrote.
He rejected Mr. Weinstein's argument that nothing of value was exchanged with Ms. Noble.
"For an aspiring actress, meeting a world-renowned film producer carries value, in and of itself," the judge wrote. "The opportunity, moreover, for the actress to sit down with that producer in a private meeting to review her film reel and discuss a promised film role carries value that is career-making and life-changing. The contention, therefore, that Noble was given nothing of value - that the expectation of a film role, of a modeling meeting, of 'his people' being 'in touch with her' had no value - does not reflect modern reality."
Mr. Weinstein's lawyer, Phyllis Kupferstein, said her client would appeal the decision. Even if the suit goes forward, she said, the case has no merit.
"We believe these claims are not legally or factually supported, and ultimately will not be sustained," Ms. Kupferstein said in a statement on Tuesday.
Ms. Noble's lawyers, who have argued that Mr. Weinstein is liable for damages under the law, called the ruling groundbreaking for the #MeToo Movement.
"It construes the federal sex trafficking law broadly, according to its plain language, to hold accountable those individuals, like Harvey Weinstein, who use their power with means of fraud, force or coercion to obtain sex acts from unsuspecting victims," Ms. Noble's lawyer, Jeff Herman, said in a statement.
Mr. Weinstein also faces criminal charges in Manhattan, including two counts of predatory sexual assault based on accusations from three women. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and is free on bail. The former movie producer has been accused of sexual harassment or assault by more than 80 women.
Reader Comments
Do get me wrong, if Harvey the jew is a parasite, he deserves to get get his pee-pee whacked, but Noble has a history of low budget film. She is in the image business, quite literally -- she is thirty-one years old, and has not made it as an actress. The sun is starting to set on her modeling career and acting career. And I think she is looking for a big payday. I would say she taking advantage of the "lets kick Harvey in nuts parade, and looking for a big bottom line in Dollars to fund her image business.
The #MeToo movement is only going to be advantageous to her in this case. I think the judge is not impartial here. And is influenced by the media. And sex trafficking is advantageous to the lawyers who smell huge money. Seems like it is a perfect storm.
Are we in for a round of roughly 80 assault cases, so far, like this. I mean in the end that scenario could bankrupt shit for brains and he deserves all that is coming, if the claims are true and it is not Hollywood purging. But, what about Ms Noble selling her soul in public.
Ah well it will all be all forgot two weeks after she gets the big check. Right!
She couldn't run from the room, call a cop, report it immediately, so he could have be arrested back then, four years ago.
Tire of these actresess that claim abuse, but are abusers themselves. We are talking abouts adults here not children.