Paul Schrader is speaking out about recent allegations of assault and harassment by a former assistant made public last week. The auteur previously denied the bulk of the allegations on April 4, but did confirm that two allegedly consensual kisses occurred with his then-26-year-old assistant between December 2023 and May 2024. On the morning of April 7, Schrader sent an email unpacking the allegations to various members of the press and other industry professionals and personal friends, which IndieWire has obtained. (You can read the full email below.)
The assistant filed a motion April 3 in New York State Supreme Court under the moniker “Jane Doe,” alleging that Schrader was in breach of contract for violating the terms of the settlement over the past assault accusations.
“You may have read that my former assistant filed a lawsuit making some allegations about me. I am writing because you are important to me and I want you to hear from me directly about this subject,” Schrader wrote. “Out of the blue, in the fall of last year, a lawyer I had never heard of, representing my former assistant, sent me a letter demanding that I pay my former assistant millions of dollars or she would go public with sensational, false, and misleading accusations about our relationship and my conduct via a lawsuit. I understood that the mere assertion of such accusations would be damaging and hurtful.”
He continued, “As a result, I nearly committed to settling the claims by paying a small fraction of the amount that had been initially demanded to avoid the hurt and harm that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit with these kinds of false and misleading accusations would cause, to say nothing of the cost of litigation. Upon reflection, I changed my mind, which I believe I was legally entitled to do, and declined to sign the written settlement agreement the lawyers had prepared. I refused to bow to the coercion created by what I regard as unwarranted and opportunistic claims and resolved to defend myself.”
As stated in the legal claim, Doe and Schrader’s respective lawyers reached a settlement in February 2025, with the payment to be issued in increments across seven months. However, Doe’s lawyer Menaka Fernando alleged that Schrader’s attorney told their team that Schrader had done some “soul searching” after being ill and opted to not go forward with the payment to Doe for the amount agreed upon.
Schrader now details how he believes Doe’s lawsuit was filed “for a quick money grab.” He noted that Doe did not sue for sexual harassment, but instead took legal action to “enforce against me the settlement agreement I declined to sign — even though the agreement says clearly that it would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it.”
Schrader deemed the details of Doe’s motion to be “gratuitous” in its inclusion of “sensational, false, and misleading accusations” ranging from alleging that Schrader “trapped” Doe in his Cannes hotel room while there for the premiere of his film, “Oh, Canada,” as well as wearing an open bathrobe with his genitals exposed. Doe worked as Schrader’s production assistant from May 2021 to September 2024, when she was allegedly terminated (Schrader contests the details of this, below). The motion claims Schrader “used his position of power over Ms. Doe (who is 52 years younger than him) to force her to work in a sexually hostile, intimidating, and humiliating environment on a daily, if not hourly, basis.”
He also added that after drinking together at Cannes, he did kiss Doe but after she “indicated displeasure,” he “never attempted to kiss her again” and apologized.
“I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the accusations were included as a tactic — to bully me into writing a check. If that is their plan, it will not succeed,” Schrader wrote. “The lawsuit labors to create a false impression about my character and my interactions with her. It also rewrites history, in a desperate attempt to transform our relationship of more than three years, which consisted of Plaintiff’s diligent work and very willing non-sexual companionship, into something unwelcome, coercive and odious to her. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
He continued, “To be absolutely clear: I never had sex in any form with Plaintiff. Nor did I ever attempt such a thing — period. I never exposed myself to Plaintiff — at any time. Our most physically ‘intimate’ experiences together consisted of two kisses on the lips, which occurred months apart. We also often kissed one another on the cheek in gestures of greeting and farewell. … Her lawsuit tries to paint a very different picture — one that isn’t true.”
In the email, Schrader shared that Doe was not terminated, but rather demoted due to both his own reduced professional needs and her personal family leave. Schrader noted that, after having completed his most recent film, he did not need for a full-time assistant. (Schrader previously posted on Facebook in early 2024 to announce he was looking to employ an assistant for one feature.) According to Schrader, Doe had since relocated to Arizona to care for her ailing grandfather.
Rather than eliminating Doe’s position, Schrader reduced her pay by approximately 50 percent “even though she was not doing much work for me,” in hopes that Doe would return to full-time work on his next feature. “I also emphasized to her that if she was ready to move on in her career, she should do so and would have my unqualified encouragement,” Schrader wrote. “Within a few months of this reduction in pay, I heard for the first time about the grievances detailed in the demand letter, which have been partially published in the lawsuit papers.”
In contrast, Doe’s motion alleges Doe was fired for refusing Schrader’s advances.
Schrader concluded, “I understand that in the current climate a defendant accused of sexual harassment is often presumed guilty in the court of public opinion without the fairness of due process — unless and until the defendant proves his or her innocence. But that presumption is not always true. It is not true in this case. I have nothing to hide about my conduct — and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant’s threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed. If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth.”
Read the full email from Schrader below.
You may have read that my former assistant filed a lawsuit making some allegations about me. I am writing because you are important to me and I want you to hear from me directly about this subject.
Out of the blue, in the fall of last year, a lawyer I had never heard of, representing my former assistant, sent me a letter demanding that I pay my former assistant millions of dollars or she would go public with sensational, false and misleading accusations about our relationship and my conduct via a lawsuit. I understood that the mere assertion of such accusations would be damaging and hurtful. As a result, I nearly committed to settling the claims by paying a small fraction of the amount that had been initially demanded to avoid the hurt and harm that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit with these kinds of false and misleading accusations would cause, to say nothing of the cost of litigation. Upon reflection, I changed my mind, which I believe I was legally entitled to do, and declined to sign the written settlement agreement the lawyers had prepared. I refused to bow to the coercion created by what I regard as unwarranted and opportunistic claims and resolved to defend myself.
Plaintiff has now filed suit, apparently hoping against hope for a quick money grab. She hasn’t sued for sexual harassment; she has sued to enforce against me the settlement agreement I declined to sign — even though the agreement says clearly that it would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it.
Although her lawsuit is for breach of the settlement agreement draft, it gratuitously includes some of the sensational, false, and misleading accusations that were contained in her demand letter. I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the accusations were included as a tactic — to bully me into writing a check. If that is their plan, it will not succeed. The lawsuit labors to create a false impression about my character and my interactions with her. It also rewrites history, in a desperate attempt to transform our relationship of more than three years, which consisted of Plaintiff’s diligent work and very willing non-sexual companionship, into something unwelcome, coercive and odious to her. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To be absolutely clear: I never had sex in any form with Plaintiff. Nor did I ever attempt such a thing — period. I never exposed myself to Plaintiff — at any time. Our most physically “intimate” experiences together consisted of two kisses on the lips, which occurred months apart. We also often kissed one another on the cheek in gestures of greeting and farewell.
The first kiss was in December 2023 in a New York bar after we had both been drinking. She continued working actively with me thereafter. She did not indicate to me that she had been troubled by the kiss, much less that she preferred to change or end our relationship. She even co-wrote a script with me after this kiss.
The second kiss took place in May 2024 at Cannes where she had accompanied me for the premiere of my most recent film. Once again, after we had been drinking together, I kissed her. This time she indicated displeasure. I never attempted to kiss her again and I also apologized. Even after Cannes, Plaintiff expressed emphatically her desire to continue to work, dine and travel with me. She also expressed her desire to work with me on my next film, which was scheduled for production last fall. Finally, she participated in an interview and voluntarily made personal social media posts in which she chose to praise me.
Plaintiff was my Production Assistant from June 2021 until September 2024. During our more than three years of work together, she eagerly accompanied me to numerous work and social events as my guest. These events included small, private dinners with prominent celebrities in the entertainment industry. We also dined together in restaurants, drank together in bars, visited museums, and attended concerts, plays and film festivals. She never expressed any reluctance to attend these events or to join me in these one-on-one activities. If she was unhappy to participate in these activities, she didn’t show or mention it. On the contrary, she repeatedly expressed to me enthusiasm about her participation. Her lawsuit tries to paint a very different picture — one that isn’t true.
It is more than a little revealing that, throughout her employment, Plaintiff chose on her own to make flattering social media remarks about me, emphasizing her belief in my talent and her delight in my mentorship. I think it is at least as revealing that a number of her social media posts have been deleted since she engaged counsel and asserted her claims. The deletions include her reference to me as “my man”.
In the summer of 2024, having completed my most recent film, I had no need for a full-time assistant. Plaintiff was living in Arizona then, caring for her ailing grandfather, who subsequently passed away. Rather than eliminating her position, I reduced her compensation by approximately 50% even though she was not doing much work for me. I hoped that she would return to full-time work in the not-too-distant future when my next contemplated film project would create a need for an assistant. I also emphasized to her that if she was ready to move on in her career, she should do so and would have my unqualified encouragement. Within a few months of this reduction in pay, I heard for the first time about the grievances detailed in the demand letter, which have been partially published in the lawsuit papers.
I understand that in the current climate a defendant accused of sexual harassment is often presumed guilty in the court of public opinion without the fairness of due process — unless and until the defendant proves his or her innocence. But that presumption is not always true. It is not true in this case. I have nothing to hide about my conduct — and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant’s threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed. If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth.
