CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT: META REHIRED A DANGEROUS FORMER EMPLOYEE WITH A KNOWN HISTORY OF HARASSING & STALKING ANOTHER EMPLOYEE

October 1, 2024, New York, NY—Today, James Napoli, an employee of Meta Platforms since 2019, and his counsel, C.A. Goldberg PLLC and Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court asserting that Meta violated Mr. Napoli’s civil rights when it rehired a former Meta employee, G.F., who savagely sexually harassed and stalked Mr. Napoli for over a year (which Meta knew), and caused Mr. Napoli to experience even more harassment.

As the lawsuit alleges, shortly after Meta laid off G.F. during an 11,000-person mass layoff in November 2022, G.F. began a campaign of outrageous sexual harassment and stalking of Mr. Napoli. Before the layoff, Mr. Napoli and G.F. had been mere work acquaintances with minimal contact. They both worked in Meta’s New York City office and, as gay men, were members of Pride@Meta, an employee resource group for LGBTQ+ employees. Mr. Napoli, concerned that G.F. was a highly disturbed and dangerous person who could seriously harm him and other employees of Meta, reported G.F.’s harassment and stalking to Meta’s security and human resources departments in November and December 2022. He reported it again to Meta’s corporate security department in September 2023 after G.F.’s stalking escalated to in-person visits and themes of violence, delivered relentlessly through several devices. As the lawsuit alleges, although Meta assured Mr. Napoli he was safe at work and that G.F. was on “do not hire” and “no access” lists, Meta shockingly re-hired G.F. in January 2024, exposing Mr. Napoli to even more harmful and amplified harassment and stalking from G.F., who blamed Mr. Napoli when Meta terminated him a second time.

The lawsuit claims that Meta violated the New York City Human Rights Law’s prohibition on discrimination and harassment based on sex and Mr. Napoli’s status as a victim of sex offenses or stalking. It also alleges that Meta unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Napoli when he complained to Meta that the company had re-hired a man who harassed and stalked him, including by reducing his work responsibilities, sidelining him from assignments, and giving Mr. Napoli a negative performance evaluation that contained false statements. Finally, the lawsuit asserts that Meta negligently hired and supervised G.F. and intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress on Mr. Napoli.

Mr. Napoli is represented by Carrie Goldberg, the founder of C.A. Goldberg PLLC and Peter Romer-Friedman, the founder of Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, both public interest lawyers who have a strong record holding major technology companies accountable and advancing civil rights. He is also represented by Rutgers University Law Professor David Lopez, who served as the General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 2010 to 2016 and joined Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC as Of Counsel earlier this year.

The harassment and stalking that Mr. Napoli experienced was severe and disturbing, and after G.F. was rehired and then terminated G.F.’s harassment and stalking became even more violent with themes of revenge and sexual violence. This harassment caused Mr. Napoli to experience extreme physical, emotional, and psychological distress.

Mr. Napoli said, “When I was hired by Meta in 2019 it was my dream job. And I’ve had the opportunity to work on some very meaningful projects at Meta.  I believe that all workplaces should be free of danger and harassment. I’m so disappointed that after I reported a disturbed individual’s frightening conduct so many times, Meta invited him back into its workplace.  I simply wanted to do my job without fear, harassment, and distraction.  I’m taking action today because I want to make sure that nothing similar ever happens to anybody else, at Meta or any other company.”

Carrie Goldberg, the Founder of C.A. Goldberg PLLC, said, “Workplace hazards are not limited to physical conditions. Meta’s decision to reintroduce a known dangerous individual to the office is beyond the pale. Being the target of stalking puts somebody in danger and on-alert 24/7. James Napoli is a rising star in his field and Meta’s recklessness sidetracked his career and devastated him personally. This mega-billion dollar company presents itself as the most cutting edge innovator on data, AI, and technology, but it can’t even keep track of the people it hires.”

Peter Romer-Friedman, the Founder and a Principal of Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, said, “An employer’s most fundamental duty is to protect its workers from sexual harassers, stalkers, and other dangerous people. It’s outrageous that Meta re-hired a known harasser and stalker long after James Napoli had the courage to report the savage harassment he had experienced. How can Meta be trusted to keep billions of its users safe when it can’t keep a known sexual harasser and stalker out of its own workplace?”

David Lopez, the former EEOC General Counsel and an attorney at Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, said “The EEOC and other public and private agencies have issued guidance to employers about how to carry out the fundamental duty of keeping their employees safe from harassment. It is inexplicable that one of the largest employers in America ignored these cost effective and common-sense steps to great harm to Mr. Napoli.”

For further comment,

Carrie Goldberg:  info@cagoldberglaw.com 646.666.8908
Peter Romer-Friedman: peter@prf-law.com 718.938.6132

Now Read:

CNBC News Coverage: A Former Meta Staffer Stalked a Co-Worker for Over a Year. Then the Company Rehired Him, Lawsuit Says

 

Related posts

We are not your attorney. Nothing on our website, blog, or social media should be interpreted as legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on the basis of information on this site without seeking the advice of an attorney. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case: we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.