As the grim list of sexual harassment and assault complaints against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein continues to grow, Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into five allegations of sexual assault made by three women in the United Kingdom.
The Guardian reports that a team of officers has been assigned to investigate the alleged incidents, which reportedly took place between the 1980s and 2015.
Actress Lysette Anthony is one of the women to come forward. She said on Sunday that she met Weinstein while working on the 1983 film Krull, and they became friends. But, Anthony said, Weinstein raped her in her London home in the 1980s.
Another woman, identifying herself with the pseudonym Sarah Smith, is a former Miramax employee who said Weinstein raped her in the basement apartment of his London offices in 1992.
Scotland Yard is also investigating complaints from one accuser about incidents that reportedly took place in 2010, 2011, and 2015, according to the The Telegraph.
The news from across the pond coincides with a disheartening development pertaining to Weinstein’s 2015 employment contract with The Weinstein Company. TMZ, which obtained a copy of the contract, reports that the document contains language effectively protecting Weinstein in the event of a sexual harassment suit.
The contract stipulates that should Weinstein treat “someone improperly in violation of the company’s Code of Conduct,” he is required to reimburse The Weinstein Company for any settlements or judgments. More specifically, he would be required to pay “$250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance.” These sums, the contract says, act as a “cure” for any misconduct, and prohibit any further action being taken against him.
Additionally, the contract states that Weinstein is entitled to mediation and arbitration before he is fired — neither of which occurred before the producer was ousted from The Weinstein Company. Weinstein, in other words, may have grounds to bring a lawsuit against his former company.