A Manhattan federal jury has found Robert De Niro’s production company, Canal Productions, liable for gender discrimination and retaliation, awarding former executive assistant Graham Chase Robinson over $1.26 million.
The verdict, delivered on November 9, 2023, after a two-week trial overseen by Judge Lewis J. Liman, underscores that federal workplace protections apply even in high-profile, celebrity-driven businesses. “Federal employment protections extend to all workplaces,” Robinson’s attorney emphasized.
The Case and the Plaintiff
Robinson, who worked for De Niro for 11 years before resigning in April 2019, claimed a hostile work environment marked by gender-based stereotyping and retaliation. Her legal team initially sought $12 million, but the jury validated her core claims. Canal Productions’ $6 million counterclaim, alleging misuse of company funds and theft of 5 million airline miles, was rejected.
The swift verdict, reached after roughly five hours of deliberation, hinged on Robinson’s testimony about unequal pay, demeaning “office wife” duties, and the company’s punitive response to her departure. The jury’s decision reinforced that workplace misconduct cannot be excused by celebrity status.
A Long Tenure, Unequal Treatment
Robinson began at Canal Productions in 2008 as a personal assistant, eventually earning the title of Vice President of Production and Finance, with an annual salary of $300,000. Despite her executive role, she testified that her duties remained those of a personal assistant, unlike those of her male colleagues.
Robinson cited the example of De Niro’s longtime personal trainer, Dan Harvey, who received equal or higher compensation without performing menial tasks. She claimed De Niro justified the pay gap by saying Harvey “has a family to support,” which Robinson presented as evidence of gender-based wage discrimination. These details highlighted systemic inequities in the company’s hierarchy.
Demeaning Tasks and Hostile Environment
To illustrate the toxic workplace, Robinson described tasks she saw as degrading and stereotypically feminine, including washing De Niro’s bed sheets, buttoning his shirts, vacuuming, and scratching his back. De Niro acknowledged the back-scratching requests on the stand, saying, “You got me!” while dismissing them.
Robinson also testified that De Niro called her a “bitch” and berated her during phone calls. The jury’s finding of liability for gender discrimination affirmed that enforcing domestic-like duties and using derogatory language towards a female executive constitutes unlawful treatment, even in celebrity-run offices.
The Breaking Point and Legal Fallout
Workplace tensions intensified in 2018 when De Niro’s girlfriend, Tiffany Chen, took over a Manhattan townhouse renovation. Robinson testified that their relationship became adversarial, adding stress to her work life. After resigning in 2019 and requesting severance and a reference, she was refused. Instead, Canal Productions filed a lawsuit against her weeks later.
Robinson testified that the resulting reputational damage left her unemployable, stating she applied to 638 jobs without receiving an offer. This phase of the case emphasized the lasting impact of retaliation and workplace mistreatment on professional opportunities.
The Verdict and Its Meaning
The jury awarded Robinson $1,264,285.72 in damages, split evenly between gender discrimination and retaliation at $632,142.86 each. While De Niro was not found personally liable, Canal Productions was held fully responsible. The jury rejected the company’s counterclaim regarding stolen airline miles entirely, validating Robinson’s narrative and discrediting claims of disloyalty.
Legal analysts note the split verdict sends a clear message: executive power cannot shield discriminatory practices. The decision also reinforces accountability in high-profile workplaces and highlights the significant financial and reputational consequences of toxic workplace culture.
Broader Implications for Hollywood
The ruling sets a precedent for workplace conduct in the entertainment industry, showing that company structures cannot protect owners from liability for discrimination. Studios and production companies face real risks—financial and reputational—if they tolerate unequal treatment or “office wife” dynamics.
By affirming claims of gender-based pay disparities and retaliation, the verdict highlights the importance of enforcing federal labor laws. Workplace culture, not hierarchy, determines legal and ethical responsibility. Hollywood now faces heightened scrutiny over how power dynamics shape professional environments and employee treatment.
A Landmark Decision
This case serves as a cautionary tale for high-profile companies: celebrity status does not exempt organizations from legal obligations. Canal Productions’ liability reinforces the principle that toxic workplace conduct, including gender discrimination and retaliation, carries significant consequences.
The jury’s decision also underscores broader lessons for the entertainment industry. Organizations must ensure fair treatment, equitable pay, and professional respect. Beyond Hollywood, the ruling reminds all workplaces that protecting employees from bias and retaliation is not optional—it is the law.
Sources:
Associated Press / PBS NewsHour Nov 2023 trial coverage
BBC News Nov 2023 case summary
CNN Nov 2023 verdict report
The New York Times’ Nov 2023 verdict analysis
The Hollywood Reporter Nov 2023 verdict coverage
Variety Nov 2023 trial coverage
Fortune Nov 2023 verdict report
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York case proceedings
