Jimmie Allen has countersued the two women who filed sexual assault lawsuits against him, accusing them of defamation and stolen property.
In a pair of counterclaims filed Thursday in a Tennessee federal court and obtained by Rolling Stone, Allen not only denied all of the severe allegations against him and sought the dismissal of the Jane Does’ lawsuits, but he also countersued the two women, accusing them of “intentional, malicious” actions that have resulted in the sudden halt of his once-promising career.
In both countersuits, Allen admits to having extramarital, “consensual sexual encounters” with both women but denies the allegations of sexual misconduct levied against him.
“In March of 2021, Allen and Doe began to engage in a consensual sexual relationship,” the countersuit claims. “Throughout the relationship, sexual encounters were initiated by both Allen and Doe. The relationship continued until the fall of 2022 when Allen ended the relationship to focus on repairing his relationship with his wife.”
Much of the countersuit against Jane Doe 1 focuses on the interview she subsequently gave to Variety, saying the article “made several untruthful statements which painted Allen and Doe’s consensual affair as nonconsensual sexual misconduct” and that “Doe disparaged Allen throughout the Variety Article.”
Following the initial Jane Doe lawsuit, Allen was dropped by his label, talent agency, publicist, and artist management company. He also “lost lucrative endorsement deals, had several performance contracts cancelled, and was ultimately dropped by his record label” and “has been unable to book musical performances, promotional appearances, or television appearances.”
As for Jane Doe 2, who claimed Allen assaulted her in a Las Vegas hotel room and filmed them having sex without her knowledge or consent, the country singer’s legal team admitted in the countersuit that while the sexual encounter was filmed on Allen’s cellphone, Allen first asked (and received) permission to film it, and that the phone was set up “in plain view at the foot of the bed,” and not hidden in a closet.
Jane Doe 2 said in her lawsuit that she took Allen’s phone with her when she left the hotel room and ultimately gave it to police, which — according to the countersuit — qualifies as stolen property.
In a statement to Rolling Stone, Allen said, “As a result of numerous false allegations, I have engaged with a legal team to proceed with an appropriate course of action to protect my reputation and refute these claims that have caused severe damage to my family, mental health, and business.”
Allen continued, “I’ve taken a couple months before publicly responding to these claims, because I wanted to fix my family first. This situation has caused me great humiliation, and I felt it was necessary to seek professional help. For years, I have dealt with racism and harmful threats solely because I am a Black man in the country music industry, and this situation has only amplified that. As the son and brother of rape victims, and the father of daughters, these false claims are extremely hurtful to me and everyone around me.”
“These false allegations have caused me to lose a vast number of business and endorsement opportunities that I worked extremely hard for. These false allegations have also not only harmed me, but have caused severe financial damage to my band, my team, and their families.”
In a statement to Rolling Stone, Elizabeth Fegan, the attorney representing the Jane Does, said, “We’ve reviewed the recent filings from Allen’s legal team and they’re what we’d expect – claims that all his encounters with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were consensual. We’re eager to show the court abundant evidence to the contrary, which we believe will prove that Jimmie Allen is a serial abuser and should be held accountable for his actions.”
Fegan added, “It is becoming increasingly common for perpetrators to countersue their victims, claiming defamation. This is a concerning trend, one designed to convince victims that if they speak out, they will be the target of spurious litigation.”