The Jane Doe now suing former Def Jam President Kevin Liles with allegations he raped her in a company office in 2002 previously signed a settlement agreement that released Def Jam’s owner, UMG, and any staff including Liles from “all claims” related to the woman’s employment at the label, a copy of the 2005 settlement filed in federal court reveals.
Liles attached a copy of the previously confidential settlement to a new legal filing this week, arguing that the 20-year-old pact barred Doe from suing both him and UMG last February. He said that if the woman doesn’t dismiss her “damaging and frivolous claims” against him immediately, he will use the settlement to seek sanctions against her.
With Liles on the offensive, lawyers for the Jane Doe are fighting back. In a new filing late Friday, they argue their client never forfeited her right to sue for a sexual assault. They admit they didn’t have a copy of the 2005 settlement until UMG handed it over to Liles last week, and they concede they’re now voluntarily dismissing UMG from the lawsuit, considering the settlement. However, her attorneys argue the 2005 release was reached in connection with an employment discrimination dispute, not a civil lawsuit, so it’s thereby “limited” by that context.
“[Jane Doe] had and continues to have a good faith belief that the scope of the release was not intended to cover the rape by Kevin Liles,” the Friday letter from the woman’s lawyer, Lucas B. Franken, reads. The letter says the woman considered the $47,500 paid to her under the deal a “severance package” for her employment claims. Franken says his client never told anyone about the alleged rape when she complained to her employers 20 years ago because she simply wasn’t ready.
In a dueling letter filed Thursday, Liles’ legal team argued that the release agreement signed in 2005 clearly released Liles from any allegation whatsoever. They refuted the argument that the deal covered employment claims only. “Plaintiff’s arguments are without basis and would mean that an individual could conceal known – and here, fictitious – claims when settling with a counter-party, purport to release ‘any and all claims,’ and then file suit seeking remedy for those concealed claims two decades later,” Liles’ lawyers Krystal C. Durham and Joseph M. Terry wrote.
Editor’s picks
Liles, 57, has vehemently denied Doe’s allegations, calling them “outrageous.” In a statement last February, he vowed to clear his name and then sue the Jane Doe and her lawyers for defamation. In their letter filed Thursday, Liles’ lawyers accused the woman of “hoping to extort a settlement out of Mr. Liles based on negative publicity.”
Liles’ lawyers declined to comment on Friday. In a statement sent to Rolling Stone, Franken accused Liles of trying to “threaten and silence” the Jane Doe.
Trending Stories
“We believe the outcome of an employment dispute does not negate our client’s right to seek redress for the sexual assault and rape that she suffered. Mr. Liles can attempt to intimidate and distract all he wants – we intend to let the facts and evidence speak in court.,” Franken says.
The judge did not immediately rule on Liles’ request for a sanctions hearing or the Jane Doe’s request to amend her lawsuit. A spokesperson for UMG did not respond to a request for a comment.
