In August 2019, Oscar winner De Niro sued his former assistant, Graham Chase Robinson, for binge-watching Friends on the job and stealing millions of frequent-flyer miles.

Two months later,Robinson filed her own lawsuit, near the precipice of the #MeToo movement, accusing De Niro of gender discrimination and retaliation, along with trying to convince the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to prosecute her for stealing from the actor’s loan-out company.

The dueling claims, which were largely expected to settle, are now set to go to trial on Monday in New York federal court, with De Niro set to take the stand after opening statements. He will testify against accusations that he oversaw a toxic workplace in which he underpaid Robinson, subjected her to vulgar comments and assigned her domestic duties like buttoning his shirt and washing his sheets despite her lofty executive title.

“De Niro is someone who has clung to old mores,” stated the complaint, which compares one of Hollywood’s most powerful actor-producers to Bill O’Reilly.

Filings in the case draw on a trove of texts and internal company emails. Robinson was employed by De Niro and Canal Productions from 2008 to 2019, rising from his executive assistant to director of productions and then vice president of production and finance. Her responsibilities, which kept her on the job around the clock, included running an array of errands for De Niro, his family and Canal’s office.

In late 2018, she intended to resign but was convinced to stay. What De Niro exactly said to keep her from leaving is disputed. At her deposition, Robinson claimed that De Niro told her, “If you leave me in the lurch I’ll give you a bad recommendation.” The actor denied saying anything of the sort. She soon after asked for a raise to her salary, which at the time was $200,000. She stated, “I have worked for you for 11 years, and I don’t begrudge anyone their salary, but I want parity. To give you an example, I make less than your trainer who is at $250,000 base salary and expenses that exceed $70k a year.” After the discussion, De Niro increased her base compensation to $300,000.

Chen and De Niro began speculating that Robinson was in love with the actor. In March 2019, Chen demanded he find a replacement because she didn’t want Robinson around the house. She texted De Niro, “I’m not gonna be happy until you tell me she is looking for her replacement” and “if you keep her, you and I will eventually have problems”

Another of De Niro’s former assistants testified that her employment was terminated in 2003 at the request of his then-wife. Robinson similarly didn’t want to be involved in tasks related to the residence either. She testified that “[m]y job at Productions kind of had been redirected to all of this gender female role where I was handling this housework, and vacuuming, and doing all of these things… It had nothing to do with VP production of finance. That was incredibly demeaning and frustrating for me to deal with.”

As their relationship soured, the pair continued to negotiate Robinson signing a release. In exchange for her signature, she proposed nearly two years pay at the salary of $300,000 per year, a meeting with De Niro, a mutual release with an indemnity clause, recommendation letters for four business schools and the retainment of all flyer miles, among other provisions.

Legal chaos ensued when De Niro balked at the proposal. He texted Chen, “The balls. the nerve. the chutzpah. the sense of entitlement, how dare her!”

In July 2019, Harvey sent Robinson a letter accusing her of breaches of fiduciary duty by charging to Canal a number of personal expenses for things like food, dog-sitting, cameras, dry-cleaning and flowers.

Robinson, through her lawyers at Sanford Heisler, countered that she had claims against Canal and De Niro for sex discrimination, sexual stereotyping, hostile work environment and retaliation. Canal fired the first shot when it sued Robinson in New York state court for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty and fraud in a $6 million lawsuit that was eventually withdrawn and allowed to be reasserted as counterclaims in federal court after Robinson sued two months later. De Niro also met with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office concerning the accusation that she stole from him, though prosecutors declined to pursue the case.

Major players tend to settle to avoid high-profile legal battles that could force them to testify, in turn juicing unfavorable headlines at inopportune times. (De Niro’s Killers of the Flower Moon released Oct. 20.) Over the course of 11 years of employment, Robinson was able to point to legally questionable behavior, some on more solid footing than others. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that the gender discrimination claim can reach a jury. The “strongest evidence” from Robinson, Liman wrote, relates to Chen. Since Chen appears to have adopted the view that Robinson was in love with De Niro, jurors could view it was motivated by her gender. And while she wasn’t an employee of Canal, Chen could’ve been acting as an “agent” of the company, according to the order.

“A reasonable jury could infer from Chen’s private comments about Plaintiff that, based in part, on Plaintiff’s gender and status as a single female, she inferred that Plaintiff must be in love with her boyfriend and consequently wanted her terminated,” stated the 158-page summary judgment ruling.

Liman dismissed the equal pay claim. He concluded that seeking pay on parity with male employees, like De Niro’s personal trainer, is insufficient to substantiate the allegation since she “never mentioned that the difference in their salaries was possibly related to their genders or even attributed the difference in pay to the fact that he was a man and she was a woman.” He also narrowed the scope of the retaliation claim, excluding allegations relating to the motivation behind De Niro filing a countersuit against Robinson.

De Niro, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, Chen and Harvey are all expected to testify. Opening statements are set to begin on Monday after jury selection.