Wendy Williams' Guardian Hits Lifetime with New Lawsuit

Back in March former daytime talk show host Wendy Williams' court appointed guardian, Sabrina Morissey, filed an emergency injunction to stop the airing of Lifteime's "Where is Wendy Williams," documentary [click here if you missed that]. 

Morrissey hits Lifetime with another lawsuit, accusing them of exploiting Wendy and demanding they pay for Wendy's medical care and supervision for the rest of her life....

From People

Wendy Williams' guardian has filed a new complaint against Lifetime's parent company, A&E Television Networks, Lifetime Entertainment Services, EOne Productions, Creature Films and its executive producer Mark Ford.

The guardian, Sabrina Morrissey, filed the suit in New York Supreme Court on Monday, Sept. 16, roughly seven months after the premiere of Lifetime's shocking documentary Where Is Wendy Williams?, which explores Williams' life under her guardianship. It aired on Feb. 24 and 25 after Morrissey unsuccessfully tried to halt the premiere date in court.

"As is patently obvious from the very first few minutes of the Program itself, W.W.H. was highly vulnerable and clearly incapable of consenting to being filmed, much less humiliated and exploited," the 75-page complaint alleges. "When the Guardian discovered that Defendants’ true intentions were to portray W.W.H. in a highly demeaning and embarrassing manner, she immediately sought to protect and to preserve her dignity. But the defendants fought to move ahead... without a valid contract and released without the Guardian's consent."

In the new filing Morrissey — along with famed civil rights litigator Roberta Kaplan (who won a $83.3 million jury verdict in her representation of E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump and who successfully argued United States v. Windsor, which required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage) and her partner Tim Martin of Kaplan Martin LLP have taken on Wendy’s case — claim the network and defendants took advantage of Williams and should pay her for her medical care and supervision for the rest of her life.

"Not surprisingly, the public reacted with disgust and revulsion at Defendants’ blatant and vicious exploitation of W.W.H," the complaint continues. "By willfully taking advantage of a severely impaired, incapacitated person, Defendants have made millions on W.W.H.’s back, while W.W.H. has received a paltry $82,000" from the documentary.

"This case arises from the brutally calculated, deliberate actions of powerful and cravenly opportunistic media companies working together with a producer to knowingly exploit W.W.H., an acclaimed African-American entertainer who, tragically, suffers from dementia and, as a result, has become cognitively impaired, permanently disabled, and legally incapacitated," the complaint adds. "Eager to sensationalize and profit from W.W.H.’s cognitive and physical decline, Defendants took advantage of W.W.H in the cruelest, most obscene way possible for their own financial gain, in a manner that truly shocks the conscience."

It further alleges that the "defendants not only deliberately destroyed" Williams' "credibility and image," but did so for their own financial gain. It also notes that Williams was the "laughingstock and drunkard implicitly responsible for her own continued suffering" and numerous photos of her in a wheelchair with her legs spread were dredged up all over the Internet, while also displaying her on camera with a nearly bald head — something she would have "never, ever consented and allowed."