Russell Brand has been accused of sexually assaulting an extra on a movie set in a new lawsuit filed in the US.
The woman, referred to in the New York State Supreme Court filings as Jane Doe, claims Brand attacked her in July 2010 on the set of the film Arthur.
In an affidavit, the anonymous woman claims Brand “appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and was carrying a bottle of vodka on set” before the assault on July 7, 2010.
She claims he then exposed himself to her in full view of the cast and crew.
The woman also alleged Brand followed her into a bathroom later that day and assaulted her as “a member of production crew guarded the door from outside”.
According to court documents, the anonymous woman “continues to struggle with the resultant trauma”, with her lawyers applying to suppress her identity to minimise the harm she has already suffered.
Her lawyers also revealed she still works as an actor and “fears retaliation from current and future employers”.
The filing, submitted by New York lawyer Jordan K Merson, also claimed in a restraining order against Brand that his client had “already appeared to be retaliated against for trying to reject Brand’s advances when she was not allowed back on the second and third day of her work assignment”.
Hollywood film studio Warner Bros Pictures and other production companies involved in the movie are also named as defendants, as per the filing.
The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating multiple sex offence allegations following news reports about Russell Brand.
In September, the force said it had received a “number of allegations of sexual offences in London” as well as elsewhere in the country.
All allegations are non-recent, and there have been no arrests, police said.
The comedian and actor has strongly denied accusations made by four women in an investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.
The US legal filing marks the first time such allegations have been made against the British comic in a court of law.
The anonymous woman is understood to be seeking an unspecified value of damages from Brand, who has always insisted his relationships “were absolutely, always consensual”.
