Diddy Asks Judge To Dismiss Ex-Nanny’s Lawsuit Because She Was Bad At Her Job 

Diddy

Diddy previously called the lawsuit filed by his former nanny “a meritless shakedown to extort money” and denied she is Kim Porter’s niece.

Diddy asked a judge to throw out the lawsuit filed by his former nanny, claiming the woman didn’t do her job properly.  

The Hip-Hop mogul’s former nanny, a woman claiming to be the niece of his late ex-Kim Porter, filed a lawsuit last year alleging Diddy fired her after she requested maternity leave. Raven Wales-Walden said Puffy’s reps told her she “set a bad example” for his daughters because she got pregnant outside of marriage. 

Diddy initially branded the suit seeking unspecified damages a “meritless shakedown.” He also accused his former nanny of attempting to “extort” him and said, “Raven is not the niece of Kim Porter as she falsely alleges.” Additionally, the Bad Boy Records founder said the nanny was only ever supposed to be a temporary service as his daughters were getting older and at school most of the day.  

Diddy Denies The Allegations

Now Diddy is asking the court to throw out the entirety of her claim, RadarOnline reports. He asked the judge to dismiss her claim because Raven failed to “satisfactorily perform her job responsibilities, and otherwise conduct herself in accordance with the standards and policies of Combs Defendants.” 

Diddy also stated he took “reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace discrimination (if any) and to implement internal grievance processes designed to respond to, correct, remedy, or otherwise avoid the alleged harm, if any, and [Raven] unreasonably failed to utilize the preventive and corrective measures that the Combs Defendants provided, and reasonable use of such procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm (if any) that [Raven] alleges to have suffered.” 

Furthermore, he denied his actions were discriminatory and claimed Raven was “not performing all of her job duties as required, that there were some days that [Raven] received compensation for work that was not performed, thus resulting in wages being paid to [Raven] that were not owed.”