Bryant Wants Maid's Lawsuit Dismissed

Los Angeles (myFOXla.com) - Attorneys for Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant and his wife argued in newly filed legal papers that a former maid's lawsuit against him should be dismissed because it fails several standards of law.

Bryant has denied the claims in Maria Jimenez's lawsuit, including her contention that she quit when Bryant's wife, Vanessa, demanded she pick out a receipt for a blouse out of a bag of dog feces, but the legal papers filed Thursday contend that even if Jimenez's claims were true, they would still not be illegal.

Jimenez sued in March, claiming wrongful termination. She alleged that during the seven months she worked for the couple in their Newport Coast home, Vanessa Bryant "badgered, harassed and humiliated her."

One point of dispute is a claim that Vanessa Bryant hollered at her for putting an expensive blouse into the washing machine and then demanded she fish the receipt for it out of a bag of dog feces.

Jimenez also claims invasion of privacy because the Bryants had the house outfitted with extensive video surveillance and that on one occasion she was told she was caught on video stealing a blouse that the housekeeper said she brought from home to change into.

The lawsuit also claims intentional infliction of emotional distress and a new allegation of stalking that Jimenez's lawyers included in a subsequent motion.

Point by point, attorneys for the Bryants cite case law to knock down all the claims and argue that Jimenez's attorney William Vogeler is attempting a "kitchen sink" approach.

Efforts to reach Vogeler for comment today were unsuccessful.

In an amended version of the lawsuit, Jimenez claims a public policy violation of the law based on the Bryants demanding reimbursement for the blouse, but the Bryants' attorneys with Loeb and Loeb LLP argue that's untrue because Jimenez said in her lawsuit that she resigned before the Bryants allegedly demanded reimbursement.

The invasion of privacy complaint is bogus because Jimenez knew the Bryants had video cameras throughout their home and because there were no cameras in the bathroom where she could reasonably be expected to change her clothes in private, the Bryants' attorneys say.

Jimenez argues that being forced to touch dog feces is a violation of Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules, but the Bryants' attorneys dispute that, saying dog feces are not on the list of toxic substances.

Also, even if Vanessa Bryant verbally abused Jimenez on the job it would not rise to the level of stalking or a public policy violation, the attorneys argue.

Jimenez's argument that she was forced to quit because of intolerable working conditions is "severely undercut" by Jimenez's length of employment, plus she was an "at-will" employee who could be fired by the Bryants at any time and she was also free to quit whenever she wanted, according to the motion to dismiss Jimenez's lawsuit.

Jimenez also cannot sue for emotional distress because that is covered by the state's workers' compensation laws, according to the Bryants' lawyers.

"Plaintiff's ludicrous allegations are without merit, and defendants deny that plaintiff was ever treated in any such matter. However, even these unbelievable allegations cannot survive judicial scrutiny, and fail as a matter of law," the attorneys argue in the motion.