GETTY (2)
Andy Cohen, ‘RHONY’ Producers Fire Back at Leah McSweeney’s ‘False’ Allegations in Lawsuit
Andy Cohen and Real Housewives of New York producers are demanding Leah McSweeney’s bombshell lawsuit be put on pause, In Touch can exclusively report.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Andy, 56, asked a New York judge to stay discovery in the case until a decision was made on the motion to dismiss that he and producers brought. Leah, 41, sued Andy, Bravo and Shed Media, the production company behind RHONY, for alleged disability discrimination, sex discrimination, hostile work environment and various other claims.
The reality personality starred on RHONY from 2020 to 2021. She appeared on the third season of The Real Housewives Ultimate Girls Trip, which aired on Peacock.
Her lawsuit read, “Defendants established a rotted workplace culture that uniquely depended on pressuring its employees to consume alcohol. Defendants, however, abdicated the duties they owed to Ms. McSweeney, as her employer, to maintain a safe working environment and accommodate Ms. McSweeney’s disabilities including alcohol use disorder and mental health disorders.”
Leah’s lawyer added, “Instead, Defendants with the knowledge that Ms. McSweeney struggled with alcohol use disorder, colluded with her colleagues to pressure Ms. McSweeney to drink, retaliated against her when she wanted to stay sober, and intentionally failed to provide reasonable accommodations that would aid her efforts to stay sober and able to perform.”
The RHONY star’s suit said, “Defendants also employed psychological warfare intentionally weaponized to break Ms. McSweeney’s psyche.”
“Defendants repeatedly engaged in retaliation against Ms. McSweeney, rather than accommodating her disabilities as they were legally obligated to do,” her complaint alleged.
Leah accused Andy of using cocaine with other Bravo stars. She claimed those who did drugs with him benefited with good edits on their respective shows.
Andy’s rep denied the claims. “The claims against Andy are completely false,” the rep said at the time.
Leah sued demanding unspecified damages.
Andy and the other defendants fired back at the lawsuit weeks later. They demanded it be dismissed.
A lawyer representing the parties wrote, “While [Leah] attempts to overwhelm with a 754-paragraph complaint, even a cursory review of her allegations reveals that many concern matters entirely irrelevant to her claims and most are devoid of any factual or legal support, speculative, misleading, and/or demonstrably false.”
They added, “Many of [Leah’s] claims, supported only by the most conclusory and threadbare allegations, should be dismissed as a matter of law. The rest of [Leah’s] claims should be dismissed because they impermissibly seek to abridge Defendants’ First Amendment rights to tailor and adjust the messages they wish to convey in their creative works, including through cast selection and other creative decisions.”
Now, in a newly filed letter, Andy, Bravo and producers asked that they not be forced to produce discovery in the case until the judge rules on their motion to dismiss.
It read, “[Leah’s] disability-related claims are based on the (false) allegations that Defendants discriminated against [Leah] by encouraging her to relapse on alcohol during filming of The Shows, directing cast members to say offensive comments to her on-camera, and declining to cast her on future seasons of RHONY because Defendants purportedly prefer to depict cast members who drink alcohol, all in service of ratings. Defendants dispute these allegations.”
Andy’s lawyer argued, “[Leah] only seeks money damages, and therefore would not be prejudiced by a stay. By contrast, absent a stay, the parties—and non-parties—would be required to devote substantial time and resources to discovery, despite the likelihood that Plaintiff’s claims would be dismissed.”
They noted, “And the fact that [Leah] has not served discovery requests in the five months since she filed the Complaint belies any suggestion of urgency.”
Andy and producers argued their motion should be granted. They argued for why each claim was weak. Regarding the religious discrimination claim, they said, “[Leah’s] religious discrimination claims are based on one alleged incident: the alleged failure to provide a non-pork option at one meal during filming of RHUGT. Even if this alleged incident occurred precisely as Plaintiff describes (which it did not), it is, at most, a petty slight or trivial inconvenience that is insufficient to support a claim.”
Andy asked that no documents or depositions take place until the judge rules. Leah will be allowed to respond to the request.
Have a tip? Send it to us! Email In Touch at contact@intouchweekly.com.
