Andy Cohen and Bravo TV‘s lawyers faced off against Leah McSweeney in her legal battle against the Real Housewives of New York producers for allegedly pressuring her to drink.
The Hollywood Reporter detailed how interpretation of the First Amendment will guide the court’s decisions.
Leah’s lawsuit against Andy and RHONY producers:
“The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court alleges that McSweeney, who suffers from alcoholism, was pressured to drink booze on the show.” Also, Leah “was retaliated against when she wanted to stay sober. She claimed she was denied reasonable accommodations to aid her efforts at sobriety.”
It also alleges that the defendants [Andy and producers] “employed psychological warfare intentionally weaponized to break Ms. McSweeney’s psyche” when her grandmother was dying.
Leah’s lawyer told the judge, “They knew she was trying to be sober. The show is not called the ‘Drunk Housewives of New York City.’”
Additionally, “the First Amendment cannot shield the show’s creators from a lawsuit alleging that the show’s participants were subjected to a ‘rotted workplace culture.’”
Attorney Sarah Matz said Leah’s lawsuit should advance to the stage where evidence can be gathered for trial.
Andy/Producers’ perspective:
“Adam Levin, a lawyer for defendants including entertainer Andy Cohen, and the Bravo channel, told the judge that the lawsuit’s allegations were protected by the First Amendment.”
“It should be dismissed at a stage in which the judge is required to assume the allegations are true.”
Levin told him the lawsuit should be tossed in its entirety. He said ruling in favor of the claims made in McSweeney’s lawsuit “would kill” some television and Broadway stage shows if the First Amendment did not protect the producers of shows.
Speaking of Freedom of Speech …
Andy’s lawyer argued, “When it comes to a reality television show, the cast member becomes the message of the show and “you can’t separate the person from the speech.”
The judge, who said he had never seen the show, “asked each side numerous questions. He seemed inclined to, at a minimum, strike some allegations from the lawsuit that pertained to events on camera.”
“What are the limits a director can do to induce the behavior the director wants?”
The judge questioned a director’s limits. Could they demand that talent not sleep for two days before filming? Or, subject themselves to a physical assault just before they go on camera?
Battle of the First Amendment:
Levin said there were limits to First Amendment protection for the creators of a communicative show. But, he said they were narrow in scope.
“McSweeney’s lawsuit did not fall within the narrow exceptions. Such as when a producer might commit a criminal felony offense during the production of a show.”
The judge did not immediately rule on the future of the lawsuit. Unspecified damages for mental, emotional, physical pain along with impairment of life’s joys and lost future earnings will be considered.
