Music

A judge ruled Thursday that the four housekeepers suing Smokey Robinson for sexual assault can move forward with their $50 million lawsuit against the Motown star using pseudonyms.

Robinson had filed a motion asking the court to strike down the women’s complaint and force them to refile using their real names if they wanted to proceed. He claimed the women waived their right to anonymity when they appeared at a press conference on May 6 wearing masks and sunglasses while their lawyers shared some identifying information.

The “Being With You” singer, who is now counter-suing the Jane Does with a $500 million defamation and elder abuse cross-complaint, argued the women and their lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to “pick and choose” the details they disclose. At the press conference, the lawyers told reporters that the women were Latina, earned “below minimum wage,” and didn’t step forward sooner in part due to concerns they might face “reprisals” related to immigration status.

Before the judge ruled from the bench Thursday at a morning hearing in downtown Los Angeles, Robinson’s lawyer, Christopher Frost, argued that the pseudonyms were hindering the defense’s effort to subpoena witnesses. He also revealed some of what Jane Doe 3 purportedly said during her sealed deposition taken a day earlier.

“We learned that Jane Doe No. 3 is the sister of Jane Doe 2, and she brought Jane Doe 2 to the employment of the Robinsons four years after she claims to have already been sexually assaulted. That’s the kind of information they want to hide,” Frost argued. “We also learned that Jane Doe 3 did nothing to find another job for 12 years, then had another job and left it to come back to the Robinsons. That’s all during the time they were claiming they were being sexually assaulted. That’s the type of information they don’t want the public to know.”

Los Angeles County Judge Kevin C. Brazile listened but stuck to his tentative order in favor of the Jane Does. He said the women could proceed with pseudonyms, but he might change his mind as the case progresses. He then set a trial date for Oct. 11, 2027, adding that Robinson’s advanced age, 85, gave him priority. The judge said his other new trials were being set three years in the future.

“This early in the case, I don’t think their identities need to be revealed. Maybe later, but for now, you’re not harmed. You know who they are,” Judge Brazile said. He signaled he would grant exceptions to the anonymity ruling if Robinson’s defense needs to use the women’s names when reaching out to third-party witnesses to ask about their interactions with the plaintiffs.

In his written ruling, Brazile said he disagreed with Robinson’s claim that the plaintiffs waived their right to anonymity “simply because they might argue that their immigration status resulted in a delay coming forward, or because plaintiffs had a media conference during which they wore masks.”

“The court believes that this is a matter in which there is an overriding interest supporting the use of pseudonyms,” Brazile wrote. He cited the “repeated rapes” alleged in the women’s complaint and the possibility that Robinson’s celebrity status might inspire fans to “seek retribution.”

Before setting the trial date, Judge Brazile asked about the musician’s health. “I’ve hugged the man. He’s in better shape than I am,” Frost replied. The lawyer said the 2027 trial date worked, but something sooner might be a problem. “The other problem we have is that because the Jane Does filed police reports, we can’t have him testify at the moment, and we don’t know how long that is going to take, so we have to avoid a situation where we move so quickly that he can’t present his defense,” Frost said.  

The high-profile legal battle first grabbed headlines in early May, when the four women filed their stunning complaint with allegations that the soul singer repeatedly sexually assaulted them during their various tenures dating as far back as 2007. The lawsuit accused Robinson of multiple rapes, instances of sexual assault and battery, false imprisonment, and gender violence. It went on to accuse Robinson and his wife, Frances Robinson, of negligence, creating a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and causing emotional distress.

In the 27-page complaint, the women alleged that Robinson would find ways to isolate them at his homes in the San Fernando Valley and Las Vegas and force them into sexual contact despite their protests. Jane Doe 1 alleged Robinson sexually battered her at least seven times between January 2023 and February 2024. She claimed Robinson would take his wife to a nail salon, rush home, and then lure her into his “blue bedroom,” where he would lock the door and place a white towel on his bed so he wouldn’t “soil the bed lines.” The woman claimed Robinson ignored her resistance and would “roughly penetrate” her without using a condom.

Jane Doe 2 alleged she worked for Robinson and his wife between May 2014 and February 2020. She claimed Robinson forced her into unwanted sexual acts on at least 23 occasions. She said Robinson would force her to perform oral sex on him before he penetrated her without using a condom. She claimed he “enjoyed ejaculating all over [her] face, much to his satisfaction and her abject humiliation.”

In their cross-complaint, Robinson and his wife claimed the former housekeepers conspired with their lawyers to make “slanderous statements” against the couple at their press conference. They claimed the Jane Does and their lawyers “fabricated” the claims to extort money.

According to the Robinsons, they treated the women “as extended family” during their employment, giving them autonomy in their jobs and substantial gifts, including money for dental work, clothing, vacations, concert tickets, and even a car in one case.

“The depths of plaintiffs’ avarice and greed know no bounds. During the very time that the Robinsons were being extraordinarily generous with plaintiffs, plaintiffs were concocting an extortionate plan to take everything from the Robinsons – everything over and above what they were freely given – and wrongfully destroy the Robinsons’ well-built reputations,” the 19-page cross-complaint obtained by Rolling Stone said.

Lawyers for the women did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.