A New York jury delivered a mixed verdict in the case involving actor Robert De Niro and his former assistant, Graham Chase Robinson. The panel found De Niro not liable for sex discrimination in relation to Robinson’s duties and experience while she worked for him, but it did order him to pay $1.2 million in damages to Robinson’s company, Canal, a determination that underscores the nuanced lines between employment expectations and discriminatory treatment in high-profile workplaces. The outcome was first reported by Deadline, a source that has tracked the legal proceedings from their outset and provided ongoing coverage of the evolving case against the celebrated actor.
In a related disclosure, De Niro’s legal team noted that Robinson initially sought as much as $12 million from the actor, a demand that the defense characterized as outsized and not reflective of the documented facts or the jury’s eventual calculations. The jurors’ decision to award a substantially smaller amount than the initial demand highlights the court’s careful consideration of damages tied to Robinson’s claims and the ways in which compensation is assessed in high-stakes civil litigation.
Robinson served De Niro from 2008 through 2019, eventually rising to the position of executive vice president of production and finance. Sources connected to the case, including summaries reported by major outlets, have described a longstanding working relationship in which De Niro allegedly relied on Robinson for a wide range of tasks beyond mere job duties. The Guardian, among other outlets, has noted that the actor leaned on her for many personal and logistical needs over the years, from arranging domestic and personal matters to assisting after an injury, which in turn framed the expectations and boundaries of her role within the actor’s inner circle.
Following her dismissal, Robinson claimed that De Niro did not provide support or guidance that would have helped her pursue future opportunities within the industry. This assertion formed part of the broader legal narrative that led to the civil suit, with Robinson seeking substantial damages as part of her attempt to address perceived harms that extended beyond a singular workplace incident. The defense, meanwhile, argued that the relationship had merit based on professional performance and support, insisting that the asserted discrimination claim did not meet the legal threshold required to prevail on that specific theory.
During proceedings, Robinson’s counsel described instances where De Niro allegedly directed harsh language toward her and made remarks that were perceived as sexist. The plaintiff contended these actions contributed to an environment that impeded her ability to maintain employment, find new roles, or leave the home following termination. The defense countered that personal interactions in a private workplace can include a spectrum of communications, underscoring the difficulty of separating personal behavior from professional obligations in a high-stakes entertainment setting. The court ultimately weighed these competing narratives as part of the verdict, separating the discrimination claim from the damages awarded to Canal, and leaving open questions about the broader implications for workplace protections in the industry.
Context around the case also features occasional side notes from media coverage, including references to other public figures who have appeared in headlines for unrelated reasons. One such aside involved rumors about Jared Leto and his public exploits, which were discussed in earlier reporting but do not form part of the judicial decision in this matter. The focus of the case remains the legal questions surrounding discrimination, damages, and the responsibilities of high-profile employers to manage relationships with trusted aides and executive staff while maintaining fair, lawful, and respectful workplace practices.