Brivo Seeks Judgment Against Fired Male Worker In Discrimination Suit
Brivo asked a judge to rule on the merits of a former employee's harassment and discrimination lawsuit, arguing that he was fired for poor performance and not because of a "hostile work environment."
The company filed a motion for summary judgment and disclosed the emails, text messages, a performance improvement plan (PIP), and testimony, which were shared between the parties in discovery.
In this report, we examine the evidence, Brivo's arguments, and the former employee's response.
This is a follow-up to our original report: Fired Brivo Employee Sues Over Sexual Harassment and Hostile Workplace.
Executive *******
***** ****** ***** ***** ******************* ****************** ** *** ********* ** *********** and ***** ********* ******** *** ****** harassment ********** *** **** ***** ** the *******, ***** ******* *** ******** were *******, ********* ****** ***** **** frames, *** **** *** ******* ** his ***********.
** *** * ******* ********** *** ** *** ***** ****** Act, ******* ********* **** ** **** they **** ********* ** ******* ********** actions, **** ** *********** ** ********, for ***** ****, ***, ***, ********, or ******* ********* ************** ** **** need ** **** **** **** ******* to"****** ** *********" ************** ******* * ******* **** ***********.
***** ****** **** **** ******** *** emails *********** ***** ** *** ****** harassment ****** ******** ** "** *****, sophomoric ********** ** **** *************, ********** workplace ******." *** ******* ******* **** "possible" *********** ******** ******** ** *** were "******** *** ******."
** ******* *** ****** **** *********** was ********** *** **** *********** *** not *** ******* ******* ** *** sex ** ********, *** ******* ********* his *********** *********** **** *** ******* emails ******* ********. ** *** ******, the ******** ******* *** ******* ********* and ***** **** *********, *** ** did *** ******** ****** *********.
*********** *** ******* ** *** ******* that *** *** *** "**********" *** that *** ******* ********** ******* *** performance *********. ** ********* ** *** *******'* ******, *********** ******** *****'* **************** ** events. ** ****** ** *** ******** to ******* * "************ ******** *****" during *** ***, *** *********** *** asking * ********* *** ****, *** that ** *** ****** ******* ***** for ** ******* ****** *** ********** fired ******* ** "*********** ******."
******** ** ****** ******* *** * judge **** **** ** *** ******, Brivo ******* ******* ******** — ** other *****, * ****** ** *** merits — ******** *** ******* *** highly ********* *** ******** ****** ** favor ** *** *******. ***** *** Schoenholtz *** *** ***** ** ******** for *******.
**********
***** ***** *********** ** ***. *, 2020, * *** ***** ** **** the ******* *** *****' ****** ** his ********* ** ****. ** ******* working *** *** ******* ** ******* 2015.
** ***** *** ******* ** ***. 8, ****, ***** ***** ********** * complaint **** ******** ********** *********** ************* ********* * *****-**-*** ****** **** the ******. *** ****, ******** ***** ******** **** **** ****** Harassment *** ******* *********.
"Sophomoric **********"
** * ********* ** *** ************** lawsuit, *********** *** ******* **** * former ***** **********, ********* ***, *** made ******** ****** ******** ****** *** and **** *** ******** *** ********** by *** ****-****** **********, ***** *******.
***** ****** *** ********** ** *** ******* ******** motion**** ***********'* **** ******** ** ********** from *** *** * ****** ** text ******** ********* ******* ** ****. He *** ******** *****'* "****** **********" in **** **** * "******* ** text ******** ** ******** **** **. Lau **** *** *************," ********* ** a ********** ***** ** *** *******. The ********** *********:
*** **** ********, **** *** ********on **** reflect nothing more than, at *****, ********** **********, or more realistically, reciprocol workplace banter about possibly attending a baseball game and a Washington D.C. international embassy event. The text messagesare *** **** ******** ** **** ** *** ********* ** "****** ********" from Ms. Lau. [Emphasis Added.]
Text ******** **** *** *** *******
***** ********* ******* **** ******* ********* between ***, ****-******* ** *****, *** Schoenholtz **** *** * *** *** 4, ****. ** *** *****, *** inquires ***** ****** ***** **** *********** and ***** ********** ******** **** **: "I **** **** *****'* **** *** as ******* *** * ****** **** go **** *** ***** *** *** to **** *** ******" *** "* would **** *** ** ******".
*********** *** ******* *** ********* ** ********* *** ****-****** ********** ******* "********** this ******** ** ***** ** ***** favor ****" ***, *** *** *******'* supervisor. ***** ********* ******** **** ******** from ******* ** *********** **** ***** 22, ****, ***** **** ****** **** by *********** ****** *********.
** ** ***. **, ****, ***** to *****'* "****** **********" *** ***** managers, *********** ********* ******* ********* ** Lau ******* "******** ********** ********" *** making *** "*************." ** **** **** he ****** "*** ***** ******* * make ***** **** ** ** ******* fired, **** *** **** ****** ***** that * *** *** *********** *********'* sexual ********."
Actions ***** ** *****
** *** ********** ***** **** *** court, ***** **** **** ** ************ the ****** ********** ****** *** **** Schoenholtz *** ******* ** **** **** the "****** ********** ******** *** **** *********. ********* ********* **, **, ***********, and *** "**** ** * ***** to **** ******* *** ******" *** Schoenholtz ******** *** ********, ********* ** the *******.
***** **** *********** ***** ********* ** Lau ***** ** *****, *** ********* replied **** "**** ******* ************ ***** be ***********." *** ******* **** *********** did *** ******* ******* **** ******** from *** *** **** *** *** fired ********* ***. **, ****. *** firing "*** ******* ** ** **** Plaintiff ** *** ****** ***** *** text ********," *** ********** ****.
********* *** ********, *********** *** ******** and ***** * *****, ********* ** Brivo.
Antisemitic *******
***** **** **** *********** **** "*******" alleged ** *** ********* ** *********** comments, ***** *** ******* ****** "********" and "******." *** ******* ******* *********** did *** ******* ********** ******* ****** a **********.
*** ******* ***** **** *********** *** alleged ******* **********,****** *******, **** *** ** *** **** permitted ** **** **** *** *** the ****** ******** ** **** ******** and *** ****** ******* ** *** "legally ********." ** *** **********, *********** "admitted" **** *** ********** "****'* ******* any ******* **** *** ****** *** time ***" ** ********** *** **** taking **.
***** **** *********** "***** *** ******" whether ** ******** *** ** *** allegedly *********** ********. ******* ***** ******** testified **** "***** *** ** ******** of ********* **** ********* ******** ************** comments, **************, ** *******" ** *** company, ***** ****.
Other ********* ********* *******
***** *********** *** ******* ******* **** other ********* ******** ** *** ****** contributed ** * ******* **** ***********, Brivo ******** **** *****. ** ***** the ********* ****** **** ***********'* ********** testimony:
***** **** *********** ********** ** ** about *** ******* ** ****, *** the **** *** ******** ** "***** your ********."
PIP, ***********, ***********
******* ******** *********** **** ** ***** be ****** ** * **-*** *** on ***. **, ****, ******, "** has ****** ************ ******* **** *** have *** **** ********** **** ******** work ** ********** **** **** ** expected ** **** ******** ** ****** Sales ******* **************."
*******, ***** ****** **** ****** **** Schoenholtz's *********** ***** **** * **** after ** *** ****** ** *** PIP. ** ** ***** ** *********** on ***. **, ****, ******* ********* Schoenhotz's ******** ** * ***** *** said *** ****** ***** **** **** the ******* "** ********** $***.** **** any ************* *** ***** ****** ** the ******."
** ***. **, ****, ** ** manager *** ***** ******* **** ********** *** ***** **** "***** **** to **** ******* **** *********** ***** Schoenholtz" ******* "** *********** *** **** made" *** "** ****, **'* ********* new ******" ********* ***** *************.
*********** **** ***. **, ****, *** because ** ** "*********," ***** ** alleged *** ** ******* ******. ******** that *********** *** ****** *** ******* improperly, ******* *** *** **** ** a "** ****, ** ****." **** his ****** *** ********* ******, *********** submitted * *********** ****** *** *** promptly **********.
** *** ******** ** *****'* ******* judgment ******, *********** ****** **** ** "suffered ** ******* ********** ****** **** his ****** **********, **. ****** *******, denied *** ******* *** *****. **. Schoenholtz ******** *** ********* **** ** had * ******* ********* ** ** experienced * ****** ******* ****** **** morning."
"Subjective ********"
***** ********* *** ******-** ************ *********** *** *** ****** *** company ** *** **** **** *** emergency "*** ******** ** ** **** a ******* *********." *** ******* **** called ***********'* ********* **** *** ****** of *** *** "********** ********." ***** said:
***** *** ********* ******** **legitimate ***-************** ******* for any actions that it actually took with respect to Plaintiff, or planned to take (e.g., the unperfected termination). Plaintiff’s ********** ******** **** *** ***, or any other action, do not create a genuine factual dispute as to pretext. [Emphasis Added.]
What ***** ****
* ***** **** ******* *** ****** and ********, *** ******** *********, *** any ***** ******** ***** ******* ** determine ******* * ********** *** ** made ** *** ****** ** *** case.
** *** ***** ***** **** *** of ***********'* ****** *** ** ******** in ***** ** *****, *** **** will ** ********* *** *********** **** have ** *********** ** ******. ** the ***** ***** **** * ************* cannot ** **** ** *** ** the ******, ***** ****** ***** ** eligible ** ** ** ***** — although * ********** ** * ****** outcome ***** * ****** ** **** stage ** *** ****.