Rob Lowe and Wife Sue Former Nanny, Chef

LOS ANGELES — Rob Lowe and his wife are suing their former nanny, claiming she told secrets and lies about their family.

The complaint filed Monday in a Los Angeles Superior Court asks for at least $1,000,000 in damages and charges Laura Boyce with violating a confidentiality agreement, defamation and infliction of emotional distress on the former "West Wing" star; his wife, Sheryl; and their two sons.

Boyce was hired to take care of their sons for most of 2007 before she quit in November, according to the complaint.

The court papers make no specific reference to what information Boyce passed along, or to whom, only that Boyce had "betrayed their trust and engaged in a scheme to hurt the Lowes by spreading malicious lies" both during and after she served as a nanny.

It wasn't clear whether Boyce had hired an attorney. A message left at a phone number listed in her name wasn't immediately returned.

Lowe, 44, is appearing on ABC's "Brothers and Sisters." His screen credits include "Wayne's World," "St. Elmo's Fire" and "The Outsiders."
***
PLUS:
Read the Huffington Post's exclusive Rob Lowe's blackmail response

-and-

People reports Rob Lowe is also suing a former chef, who may have stolen prescription drugs.

TMZ has details of Rob Lowe's chef lawsuit, saying the chef had sex in Lowe's bed.

Comments

[mirandawilde]

Rob's blog posting yesterday, along the news of this lawsuit against his nanny have not convinced me of his innocence.
It has made me extremely curious about what her side of the story is. And, if what he says is true- why he didn't detect any signs of her instability within the past 7 years of her employment ? This story simply doesn't add up.
And I'm also curious to know what a "false terrible" is.
I doubt I'm the only one curious about these things, so hopefully we won't be kept in suspense for much longer.

Whether this woman is guilty or not, I feel bad for her that he's chosen to fight what should have been a private battle so publicly.

[NABNYC]

Stupid move. They have started the lawsuit and cannot now claim that the nanny and her attorney engaged in malicious prosecution. They could have simply sought an injunction, but left damage claims to a later date.

Here's what he should do: dismiss this lawsuit. Send a letter to the nanny's attorney explaining that the statements are false, defamatory, malicious; that any suit would be malicious prosecution; that the Lowes will go after not just the nanny (who probably doesn't have any money) but also her attorney (who may have money). Demand an end to the extortion and lies. Give them a deadline, like 30 days. Wait and see.

Honestly, better to get it resolved up-front than go through some big litigation which will probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to beat up some probably screwed-up penniless nanny.

[Rockwell]

How do you know they haven't already done that? How do you know the bloodsucking attorney hadn't already decided to move ahead with his big paycheck by using the screwed-up nanny.

I've seen two cases among friends and aquaintences where accusations were launched in one case to hurt and the other for profit. In each case it was attempted to be handled quietly behind the scenes and all it got them was public suspicion of guilt for "trying to hush it up."

What I took away from that is if you are accused falsely, you should come out guns blazing because the nasty allegations will come out in the end. If the Nanny has some hard evidence, then Rob should pay the price. If however, she is a nut-job or a gold digger, then she and her lawyer deserve the broadside they've gotten.

[VosVos]

Rob's previous blog accuses his worker of mental instability, alcohol/drug addiction, having a crush on Rob, and blackmail. Blackmail is criminal. Rob's blog is clearly one-sided and thinly veiled with ulterior motives. The lucky thing for Rob is that a blog's content doesn't have to be defended in court. Thus, when they needed to vaguely reflect reality, in their suit, they limited their accusations only to that which they could possibly prove. I'm betting there is a swarm of lawyers dying to take this woman's counter suit. It is one thing to accuse her of breaching their confidentiality agreement and yet, it is another to post a blog where you make scurrilous accusations which have nothing to do with your law suit. Rob should have talked to an attorney before he posted or fire the attorney who green lighted the posting of that blog.
Bottom line - Rob shouldn't be allowed to litter this site with such crap. Unless of course the site has been assumed by perezhilton.com. I'm a little shocked Huffington let this get in. It isn't edgy, cultural, etc. It is merely something you would find on a slow night on Entertainment Tonight. Shoot!

[maribelle1963]

" both during and after she served as a nanny.

What? So this has been going on for awhile, and the Lowes are just now filing a lawsuit?

This whole thing is totallly suspicious. Why are they suing a young woman with no money? Why does he claim (in another post here on huffpo) that she tried to blackmail them? Why isn't that mentioned in this article?

Rob Lowe is using his celebrity status and wealth to terrify this young woman. Stand strong, Ms. Boyce! And goodluck.

[ChartWizard]

This has now become HIGHLY suspicious.

Yesterday he was publicly "defending" himself from claims of this woman which he imagined would be made but had not been asserted and less than 24-hours later a lawsuit has magically appeared from his lawyers and been filed against her. And she is probably not well-off like he is . . . so the objective is not to collect damages from her.

What cold it be then? Damage control!

This is what's known as beating your opponent to the Courthouse. Obviously, she has a LOT to talk about and ol' Rob's lawyers want to control the discussion and presentation of facts by filing first, thus arguing first, etc.

[maribelle1963]

Exactly, ChartWizard--his actions and words are highly suspicious and give him away. I would bet money there is something very wrong with his story.

Too bad he wasn't willing to settle with the woman for some reasonable amount; it would have been cheaper than the lawyers no doubt without the publicity.

Also--insisting she has revealed information and thus violated their confidentiality agreement suggests that she cannot tell ANYONE ANYTHING EVER. It is not possible they can take away her First amendment rights to talk about her own life with one contract. Something is very wrong here.

[SharonB]

So, employees are always right? Employers have no right to defend theselves against accusations?
Just because he has more money than her does not protect her from being sued and even paying him damage if her remarks are found to be false and/or malicious. He and his family can keep the money or give it to charity or flush it down the toilet.
I don't know if he is guilty or if the employee is. But, hopelfully this will bring the matter out in the open for the both of them and the court will award damages to the real injured party.
Whoever he or she might be.