Motion to Dismiss PendingWorkplace DiscriminationReality TV

McSweeney v. Cohen & Bravo

Real Housewives of New York star Leah McSweeney sues Andy Cohen, Bravo, and producers for toxic workplace culture, alleging they exploited her alcohol addiction and that Cohen used cocaine with cast members. Cohen denies everything and moves to dismiss.

FiledFebruary 2024
CourtFederal Court, New York
StatusMotion to dismiss filed Apr 8, 2026

Parties
Plaintiff
Leah McSweeney
Former RHONY cast member (Seasons 12-13) · Age 43
v.
Defendant
Andy Cohen, Bravo & Shed Media
WWHL host · NBCUniversal/Bravo network · Production companies

In February 2024, McSweeney sued Cohen, Bravo, Shed Media, and other subsidiaries alleging a rotted workplace culture that pressured employees to consume alcohol. She claims she disclosed having alcohol use disorder to producers, who then intentionally created scenarios to exacerbate her disability for ratings.

The lawsuit also alleges Cohen used cocaine with other Housewives cast members and gave preferential treatment โ€” better edits, better storylines โ€” to those who partied with him. McSweeney appeared on RHONY Seasons 12 and 13 in 2020-2021.

In March 2026, a federal judge rejected Bravo's attempt to move the case to private arbitration, ruling it would proceed in public court. On April 8, 2026, Cohen filed a new motion to dismiss, specifically targeting the cocaine allegations. His legal team argues McSweeney does not cite a single instance where she personally witnessed Cohen using cocaine, and that the claims rely on anonymous sources, hearsay, and unspecified online material. Cohen told The Hollywood Reporter: I know what the truth is and I walk tall every day.

  • 01McSweeney alleges Bravo created a toxic environment that pressured cast to drink despite knowing about her alcohol use disorder.
  • 02She claims Cohen used cocaine with cast members and gave better treatment to those who partied with him.
  • 03Cohen's motion to dismiss says the cocaine allegations are "threadbare" โ€” no firsthand witnesses, no direct evidence.
  • 04Defendants argue casting and editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment as creative expression.

This case tests whether reality TV production environments constitute workplaces subject to discrimination and hostile environment claims โ€” or whether they are protected creative spaces. The First Amendment defense (that casting choices are expressive works) is a novel argument that could reshape how reality TV is produced and litigated.