Big Ben's accuser quits job
RENO, Nev. -- The woman who filed a lawsuit accusing Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of raping her has quit her job at the Lake Tahoe hotel-casino where she claims the assault occurred in the NFL star's penthouse room more than a year ago.
The woman had been working as a VIP host at Harrah's Lake Tahoe in July 2008, when she alleges the two-time Super Bowl champ lured her to his room under false pretenses and forced himself on her. He was in town playing in a celebrity golf tournament.
Her lawyer, Cal Dunlap, said Friday she quit "because of the way Harrah's was treating her."
He told The Associated Press he can't go into detail.
Dunlap said the woman took several leaves of absence for medical reasons in the months after the alleged incident, but she returned to work in March and had been there since.
Harrah's officials did not immediately return a telephone call or e-mail seeking comment.
The woman filed the suit in Washoe District Court in Reno last July.
Roethlisberger's lawyers asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by a district judge denying their motion to move the trial to Douglas County, closer to Lake Tahoe. No hearing has been set for that request.
Last month, Judge Brent Adams also denied a motion to dismiss the suit. It seeks a minimum of $440,000 in damages from Roethlisberger and at least $50,000 in damages from Harrah's officials who the woman claims conspired to cover up the incident.
Roethlisberger has denied the allegations and maintains the woman acted voluntarily at all times while in his room.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.