Judge cites casting couch’s history, OKs Weinstein suit

NEW YORK — A New York judge has ruled that an aspiring actress can sue Harvey Weinstein for violating sex trafficking laws because the proverbial casting couch, in which women are asked to trade sex for Hollywood opportunities, could be considered a “commercial sex act.”

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said the lawsuit filed by Kadian Noble last fall was fairly brought under sex trafficking laws Congress passed that had an “expansive” definition of what could be considered a commercial sex act. His ruling, dated Monday, was filed publicly Tuesday.

He rejected arguments by Weinstein’s lawyers that nothing of value was exchanged between Noble and Weinstein in 2014 when they watched her demo reel in a Cannes, France, hotel room before Weinstein allegedly molested her and forced her into a bathroom to watch him masturbate.

Weinstein denies wrongdoing. His lawyers did not immediately return a request for comment.

“For an aspiring actress, meeting a world-renowned film producer carries value, in and of itself,” Sweet 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,” the judge continued.

He included a footnote at the word “reality,” citing sources that explain that the concept of the “‘casting couch’ — in which aspiring actors and actresses are promised valuable professional opportunities in exchange for sexual favors — has been in the American lexicon for nearly a century.”

Weinstein claimed through his lawyers that letting the lawsuit proceed to trial means sex trafficking laws now cover all sexual activity between adults when one person holds power and influence over the other.

Sweet said that even if the prospect of a film role, a modeling meeting or a continued professional relationship with Weinstein were not enough to constitute “things of value” necessary under the sex trafficking statute, then her “reasonable expectation of receiving those things in the future, based on Harvey’s repeated representations that she would, is sufficient.”

Sweet also dismissed Weinstein’s brother from the lawsuit.