Country music star Garth Brooks publicly named the woman who accused him of sexual assault and battery in a legal filing on Tuesday, drawing a harsh rebuke from her lawyers.

The woman, a hairstylist who worked for Brooks and his wife, Trisha Yearwood, filed a lawsuit last week under the pseudonym Jane Roe in Los Angeles County Superior Court , accusing Brooks of sexually assaulting her in a hotel room in 2019.

The lawsuit included several more allegations against Brooks, including that he would purposefully expose his genitals while changing his clothes in front of her, force her to touch his genitals, send her explicit text messages and pressure her to engage in sexting with him.

Shortly before the woman filed her suit against him, Brooks sued her in federal court, claiming she was trying to extort and defame him. In Brooks suit, which was initially filed on Oct. 3 as John Doe v. Jane Roe, Brooks asked a judge to stop his accuser from further publicizing her charges against him.

Defendants allegations are not true, Brooks complaint said. Defendant is well aware, however, of the substantial, irreparable damage such false allegations would do to Plaintiffs well-earned reputation as a decent and caring person, along with the unavoidable damage to his family and the irreparable damage to his career and livelihood that would result if she made good on her threat to publicly file her fabricated lawsuit.

On Tuesday, he amended his complaint to include his real name and hers.

Garth Brooks just revealed his true self. Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim, the womans attorneys said in a statement to HuffPost. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws dont apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately.

HuffPost is not naming the woman. Like most news organizations , HuffPost does not name alleged victims of sexual assault unless they choose to come forward.

The womans attorneys filed a motion seeking an emergency sealing or redactions of her name, and urged the judge to sanction Brooks.

Each hour and day that the Amended Complaint remains on the docket without redacting Defendants identity or placing it under seal, is causing Defendant severe emotional distress and harm, her lawyers wrote.

In a letter to the court, one of her attorneys added that Brooks could have easily provided them with notice before divulging her identity to the public, but failed to.