The 66-year-old disgraced movie mogul has faced several allegations of sexual harassment since October last year, and now, a former model from Poland has alleged that she was the victim of sexual assault at the hands of the producer when she was just 16 and still a virgin.
According to The New York Post’s Page Six column, an amended Manhattan federal racketeering lawsuit was filed on Wednesday (31.10.18), which claimed that after agreeing to meet for a business lunch in 2002, Weinstein instead took the woman – who is named only as Jane Doe in the papers – to his Soho apartment.
The suit claims Jane Doe told Weinstein she was only 16 when she got in his car for what she thought was a business lunch and alleges he told her she wouldn’t make it as an actress if she didn’t do as he said.
The suit alleges: “Weinstein wasted no time in aggressively and threateningly demanding sex. Weinstein threatened and pressured Jane Doe, saying that he had ‘made’ the careers of Penelope Cruz and Gwyneth Paltrow and that neither would be working without him.
“He then took off his pants and forcibly held Jane Doe while taking her hand and making her touch and massage his penis.”
Weinstein allegedly became enraged when the teenager objected to his advances and refused to let her leave his apartment – though he eventually relented. The papers also claim Weinstein then pursued the model for the next decade and helped her land a role in 2004’s ‘The Nanny Diaries’, but she continued to resist his demands for sex.
In 2008, the pair met to arrange for her to sign up with the modeling agency Marilyn, and the suit alleges that Weinstein spotted Christina Aguilera on a nearby TV and said: “‘Wow, I’d really like to f**k that p***y’ then unzipped his pants and began touching his penis.”
Jane Doe allegedly fled the room, and now claims Weinstein “ensured she never received work” because she refused to sleep with him. The report also claims abuse and harassment left her depressed and exacerbated her anorexia.
Weinstein’s lawyer Ben Brafman said: “I have not seen the amended complaint so it’s hard for me to respond substantively, but based on everything I know, it would appear to me that there is no truth to this allegation whatsoever.”