Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Smokey Robinson may face more legal heat from the four former employees who accused the Motown legend of sexual assault and failure to pay overtime earlier this month.
Attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden, who represent Robinson’s accusers, said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that their firm will fire back at the singer’s $500-million countersuit, “filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it in its entirety.” California’s anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous lawsuits.
“[The countersuit] is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault,” said the founding partners of the Harris & Hayden law firm. “It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.”
Robinson, sued by the former employees on May 6, filed his countercomplaint Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attorneys for the singer, 85, and his wife Frances Robinson — who is a co-defendant — sued the four accusers and their legal representatives for defamation, false light, financial elder abuse and invasion of privacy, among other counts, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.
The singer’s legal filing includes alleged text message exchanges and photos with his accusers that depict a different dynamic than the one described in their initial lawsuit. The employees, who withheld their identities and worked for the high-profile couple during different periods from October 2006 to April 2024, alleged in their $50-million lawsuit that the singer sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions and failed to pay them properly for hours worked. They also claimed Frances Robinson berated them.
According to the counterclaim, the former employees had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year,” “vacationed together” with the singer’s wife and were treated “as extended family.” Despite this, the spouses believed the former employees “harbored resentment” and “sought to enrich themselves through the Robinsons’ wealth,” the complaint claims.
The counterclaim cites “allegations Plaintiffs have recently fabricated in support of their extortionate scheme” and comments the accusers’ lawyers allegedly made during a May 6 press conference. The singer also claims his opposition “participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully enrich themselves at the Robinsons’ expense,” legal documents say.
Harris and Hayden said the countersuit “mischaracterizes the facts and seeks to punish his victims for speaking out.
“[Plaintiffs] remain committed to seeking justice — not only for themselves but for all survivors who have been silenced by fear of retaliation,” the attorneys added. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others.”
In addition to the counterclaim, Robinson’s legal team filed a motion to strike the accusers’ initial lawsuit, finding issue with their decision to remain anonymous. “Plaintiffs’ concealment of their identities is prejudicing the Robinsons’ defense,” the motion alleges.
Earlier this month, Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost dismissed the sexual assault lawsuit as an “ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” dubbing the allegations “vile” and “false.”
For the most part, the singer has kept tight-lipped about the case, which sparked a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
He offered a brief response to the Daily Mail earlier this month: “I am appalled.”
Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
