\n<\/p>\n
\n\tSmokey Robinson<\/a> struck out Monday in his bid to ditch the sexual harassment and labor claims brought by two of the five Jane Does<\/a> accusing him of on-the-job sexual assaults.<\/p>\n \n\tThe Motown legend had urged a Los Angeles County judge to dismiss the claims as being too old to pursue because the women, identified as Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 5, stopped working for the Robinsons in 2020 and 2011, respectively. (The other three Jane Does stopped working for the couple in 2024, placing their labor claims within the statute of limitations for the blockbuster lawsuit<\/a> they filed last May.)<\/p>\n \n\tRobinson, 86, had claimed the revival window cited to resurrect the women\u2019s sexual battery claims did not extend to their separate allegations of a hostile work environment and unpaid wages. Robinson also argued the women failed to show how they were prevented from filing those labor claims within the three-year statute of limitations.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThere are no facts [in the complaint] indicating they were directly prevented from filing the employment claims specifically, which was their burden,\u201d Robinson\u2019s lawyer, Shir Davidovicz, argued at a hearing on Monday. \u201cEven if they were granted leave to amend [the lawsuit], this would essentially be a fraud on the court given testimony that we\u2019ve received in depositions. It would be further kicking the can down the road.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThere was systematic sexual coercion, and that would have thwarted any reasonable investigation into wage rights,\u201d the women\u2019s lawyer, Herbert Hayden, argued. \u201cThe plaintiffs have clearly stated that there was a systematic coercion for them to live under a code of silence.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tJudge Kevin Brazile ultimately sided with the women. He said revisions to California law creating a recently extended lookback window for previously time-barred claims of sexual assault<\/a> could apply to the women\u2019s claims. He said it was simply too early to make that determination now. \u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cPlaintiffs correctly assert that [the new law] may revive these claims. This statute provides a revival window for sexual harassment and wrongful termination claims that arise out of the same underlying course of sexually abusive conduct as a predicate sexual assault offense,\u201d the judge wrote in his ruling. He also noted the women\u2019s claims of \u201ca pervasive pattern of coercive sexual abuse\u201d and wrote that, \u201cgiven the allegations of systematic control and the unique power dynamic described between the parties, the court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a basis for potentially overcoming the limitations bar.\u201d<\/p>\n