NEW YORK — On Thursday, a federal court heard a case involving former “Real Housewives of New York” star Leah McSweeney, with her attorney asserting that the First Amendment does not provide immunity to the show’s producers against her allegations of a toxic working environment.

Attorney Sarah Matz argued for the lawsuit to proceed to a fact-gathering phase, where evidence would be collected ahead of a trial.

Meanwhile, Adam Levin, representing the defendants—including producer Andy Cohen and the Bravo network—countered that the claims should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, emphasizing that the allegations should be taken as true at this early stage.

The judge did not make an immediate decision regarding the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages for various forms of emotional and psychological distress, as well as lost earnings.

In the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, McSweeney contends that she was coerced into drinking alcohol during filming, which posed challenges to her sobriety, especially since she is an alcoholic. Furthermore, she claimed that when she opted to refrain from drinking or requested accommodations to support her sobriety, she faced retaliation.

Specific allegations indicate that producers engaged in manipulative tactics designed to undermine McSweeney’s mental well-being, including intimidation tactics that prevented her from visiting her ailing grandmother. She reportedly faced threats related to her employment if she chose to leave the filming site to see her grandmother.

Matz pointed out to the judge that the premise of the show does not revolve around drunkenness, noting that, “They knew she was trying to be sober.”

Despite the judge’s unfamiliarity with the series, he engaged both legal teams with numerous inquiries, hinting that he might consider dismissing parts of the lawsuit that involve events caught on film.

Levin argued for a complete dismissal of the case, warning that ruling in favor of McSweeney could set a precedent threatening numerous television and theater productions if producers are not protected by First Amendment rights.

He emphasized that in reality television, the cast members themselves embody the message, which complicates the distinction between personal actions and artistic expression.

Highlighting potential ethical concerns, the judge queried the boundaries of what a director might request from participants, such as sleep deprivation or other extreme measures prior to filming.

Levin acknowledged that while there are limitations to First Amendment protections for creators, those limits are very narrow. He maintained that McSweeney’s claims did not meet the criteria for those exceptions, which would include instances of criminal behavior occurring during production.