Supermodel Naomi Campbell's string of tussles with aides and maids can be raised in a lawsuit against her, a judge in New York has ruled.
The British model tried to block former maid Gaby Gibson from bringing up Campbell's history of arguments with people who work for her, saying it was "scandalous and prejudicial." But in a ruling published Wednesday, Manhattan state Supreme Court Judge Michael Stallman said previous incidents could be admitted.
"Those alleged acts might be relevant to the issues of intent and the need for future deterrence," Stallman wrote.
Gibson was "very happy" about Stallman's ruling, said her lawyer, Lambros Lambrou. Campbell's lawyer did not immediately return a telephone message left at his office early Thursday.
Gibson worked for Campbell from November 2005 through January 2006. She claims the 37-year-old model hit her, called her bigoted names and threatened to charge her with theft after she could not find a pair of jeans designed by Stella McCartney.
Campbell has denied the claims. She was never charged with any crime in the incident Gibson alleges.
Campbell did plead guilty in January to misdemeanor assault for throwing her cell phone at another maid, Ana Scolavino. Sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program and do five days of community service, Campbell traded couture clothes for a city Department of Sanitation vest to sweep, mop and scrub at a Manhattan garbage truck garage in March.
In February 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to an assault charge for beating assistant Georgina Galanis while making a film in Canada in 1998. Under an agreement with prosecutors, Campbell expressed remorse and was released without punishment or a criminal record.
Campbell also has faced other lawsuits from other former employees who accused her of violent behavior. She settled a claim filed by former employee Amanda Brack this spring, but no settlement terms were disclosed.
Peruvian judges accused world elites of Covid crisis conspiracy. Although this is nonsense from a legal point of view, circumstantial evidence is evident