added: 1 Feb 2013 // by: Music-News.com Newsdesk
Lady Gaga has called her former personal assistant a 'f**king hoodrat' for suing her for unpaid overtime.
The superstar's former personal assistant Jennifer O'Neill is suing her for $393,000 in unpaid wages.
In papers filed in the Manhattan Federal Court last year, Jennifer alleges she worked for Gaga between 2009 and 2011.
Gaga, real name Stefani Germanotta, gave a five-hour deposition to Jennifer's lawyers on August 6 as part of the ongoing legal action.
A videotape of the session obtained by the New York Post reportedly shows the singer slinging insults at her former employee in a profanity-laden tirade.
She is quoted as describing the plaintiff as a 'f**king hood rat who is suing me for money that she didn't earn'.
Gaga said she paid Jennifer $75,000 a year and hired her as 'a favour' although she was 'majorly unqualified' for the position.
The singer told lawyers she was being unfairly targeted. She reportedly offered frank thoughts on why Jennifer had filed the lawsuit despite Gaga's claims she was well taken care of during her employment.
'If you're going to ask me questions for the next five hours, I am going to tell you exactly what f**king happened, so that the judge can read on this transcript exactly what's going on," Gaga is quoted as saying.
"It is, like, such an amazing luxury that I get to travel the world and have planes, she doesn't even see what a luxury it is, but she thinks it's owed to her for no reason," said continued.
"She slept in Egyptian cotton sheets every night, in five-star hotels, on private planes, eating caviar."
Gaga acknowledged the work is demanding and she requires her assistants to be available at her beck and call. But she claimed Jennifer's case has no merit.
"I'm quite wonderful to everybody that works for me, and I am completely aghast what a disgusting human being that you have become to sue me like this," she said. "This whole case is bulls**t and you know it.'
In court documents, Jennifer claimed her alleged work responsibilities went above and beyond what is deemed reasonable.
The plaintiff was unable to issue further comment due to a confidentiality order.
The case is due in court later this year.