Rob Lowe, Sheryl LoRob Lowe, Sheryl Lowewe

AP Photo/Kim D. Johnson

Rob Lowe's legal woes were already personal. This time, they're financial.

Amid the latest volume of court papers to be filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court stemming from Rob and Sheryl Lowe's ongoing battle with their counterattacking nannies is a deposition given by the actor opposing nanny Laura Boyce's motion to dismiss his original breach of confidentiality suit against the former hired hand. (View the documents)

Lowe reiterates that he was nothing but a gentleman with both Boyce and fellow sexual harassment-alleging nanny Jessica Gibson. The Brothers & Sisters star also claims that his now tarnished rep has cost him several acting gigs and untold amounts of cash.

"I have never acted inappropriately with Ms. Gibson or Ms. Boyce," he said in the deposition filed Wednesday.

"Since the headline that a second nanny sued me for sexual harassment, I have been passed over for at least three commercials, any of which could have ultimately resulted in income of over $1 million."

Also filed was a deposition by (presumably former) Boyce pal Noa Shaw, a drug and alcohol counselor at an unnamed L.A. rehab center.

Shaw called herself a "close friend" of Boyce's in her declaration and claims it was she who secured Boyce's nanny job with the Lowes after introducing her to the president of the actor's production company.

Shaw does her best to cloud the character of Boyce in her deposition, alleging the former nanny frequently used the "N" word when referring to her NBA star boyfriend, that she smoked marijuana and took sedatives to help her sleep.

In her countersuit, Boyce accused Sheryl Lowe of using the racial slur in connection to the nanny's boyfriend. Boyce also claimed that Sheryl walked around her house naked, both actions that Shaw claimed Boyce never shared with her before filing suit.

Meanwhile, Boyce, who is seeking to get the Lowes' suit against her dismissed on the grounds it infringes her right to free speech, got some support in the form of fellow litigious nanny Gibson.

"On several occasions throughout the course of my employment, I opposed Rob and Sheryl Lowe's behavior, which I believed to be sexually inappropriate," Gibson stated in a deposition of her own.

As for Sheryl Lowe, who seemed to bear the brunt of the inappropriate allegations, Gibson said that "on numerous occasions I made it clear to her that her sexually inappropriate behavior and her walking around naked made me uncomfortable."

Gibson even claimed that at one time Sheryl acknowledged her discomfort and apologized for her alleged behavior, saying, "Sorry, sweetie, I had no idea."

The court battle has been brewing since April, when the Lowes preemptively filed suits against their former nannies, alleging breach of confidentiality, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and emotional misrepresentation.

Both nannies filed countersuits not long after, alleging between them sexual harassment, wrongful termination and violations of wage and labor laws.

While Boyce is seeking to dismiss the Lowes' case against her on the grounds of free speech, the Lowes are now firing back to remove one of the allegations in Boyce's countersuit, that of abuse of process, claiming it violates their First Amendment rights.

"The litigation privilege provides an absolute defense to Boyce's abuse of process claim," the Lowes said in court papers. "Boyce's claim is based on conduct that is absolutely privileged, i.e., filing a lawsuit against Boyce."

The next hearing in the matter is set for Oct. 8.

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share

We and our partners use cookies on this site to improve our service, perform analytics, personalize advertising, measure advertising performance, and remember website preferences. By using the site, you consent to these cookies. For more information on cookies including how to manage your consent visit our Cookie Policy.