In Ormond v Weinstein, noted actress Julia Ormond* filed suit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a statute designed to give survivors of sexual assault a renewed opportunity to seek justice, even decades after the fact. Her allegations were harrowing: in 1995, after a business dinner arranged by her talent agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA), she was sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein, then the co-chairman of Miramax, a Disney subsidiary. The dinner had been pitched as a professional opportunity—an intimate discussion about Miramax’s potential funding of one of Ormond’s projects under a “first look” deal. Instead, it became the setting for a devastating violation.
Ormond’s legal strategy didn’t stop with Weinstein. She turned her gaze toward the institutions that had surrounded him—Disney, Miramax, and most notably, CAA. Her claim against CAA was not simply that they had failed her professionally, but that they had breached a duty of care and fiduciary responsibility. As her talent agency, CAA occupied a position of trust. Ormond alleged that they knew—or should have known—about Weinstein’s predatory behavior and failed to warn her, instead facilitating the very meeting that led to her assault.
The legal question before the Appellate Division, First Department, was whether Ormond’s claims against CAA could survive a motion to dismiss. CAA argued that they bore no legal responsibility for Weinstein’s actions. But the court disagreed. In a unanimous decision, the panel affirmed the lower court’s ruling, allowing Ormond’s claims to proceed.
The AD1 found that Ormond had sufficiently alleged a “special relationship” with CAA, one that gave rise to a duty of care. CAA wasn’t just a business intermediary—it was a trusted advisor. And if it had knowledge of Weinstein’s history, its failure to act could be seen as negligence. The judges also rejected the notion that Weinstein’s assault was a “superseding cause” that broke the chain of liability. On the contrary, they noted that the risk of Weinstein’s conduct was precisely what made CAA’s alleged negligence so dangerous.
The breach of fiduciary duty claim was also found to be equally compelling. Ormond had pleaded with particularity that CAA knew of Weinstein’s proclivities and still arranged the meeting without warning her. Drawing every inference in her favor, the court concluded that a jury could reasonably find that, but for CAA’s misconduct, the assault might have been avoided.
This decision didn’t resolve the case—it merely cleared the path for it to move forward. But in doing so, it sent a powerful message: that silence, complicity, and institutional failure would no longer be shielded by time or prestige. For Ormond, and for many survivors watching closely, it was a step toward justice. And for the entertainment industry, it was another reminder that the past cannot be buried when the truth demands to be heard.
Trust is not a license to ignore danger.
# # #
DECISION
# # #
*Julia Ormond rose to fame in the 1990s as a luminous presence in Hollywood, starring opposite leading men like Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall and Harrison Ford in Sabrina.