As part of an ongoing suit from three former employees who accuse Charlie Rose of gender discrimination and harassment, the ousted CBS Morning anchor will have to answer questions about other women in the workplace who made similar complaints — even though they’re not involved in this litigation — a New York judge has ruled.
In May 2018, Katherine Brooks Harris, Sydney McNeal and Chelsea Wei sued Rose and CBS alleging “blatant and repeated sexual harassment.” During a November 2019 deposition, Rose admitted to having sexual relationships with co-workers which he has since come to understand were “inappropriate” in the workplace. His lawyers stopped him from giving too many details or saying if he felt any remorse.
The women filed a motion to compel Rose to answer questions about his conduct toward women in the office that either he had refused to answer or his attorneys had objected to.
Judge Verna L. Saunders on Thursday granted the motion in part.
“Insofar as the questions posed by the plaintiffs would elicit testimony as to Rose’s intent/motive when he engaged in particular behavior toward plaintiffs, this court will permit limited questioning of Rose only with respect to former employees and/or co-workers who reported directly to him who complained of gender discrimination and/or sexual harassment by Rose for the period from April 2012 through November 2017,” writes Saunders. “Whether or not Rose asserts that his conduct was consensual or within the confines of a romantic relationship is of no moment as Rose’s state of mind may differ from that of the alleged victims.”
She’ll also allow the parties to compel Rose to talk about what preparation he took for his deposition — that didn’t involve his attorneys — and his opinions and reactions to the Nov. 20, 2017, Washington Post article that preceded his ouster and the statement he made in response on Twitter.
Saunders denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel with regard to Rose’s tax returns, money he may owe Bloomberg, and conversations between him and attorneys. Those, she found are “irrelevant, invasive and/or violate Rose’s attorney-client privilege.” Saunders also found that any alleged discrimination based on anything other than gender is unrelated to the matter at hand and impermissible.