Press "Enter" to skip to content

Supposed discrimination at blockchain startup




Disclaimer: These summaries are supplied for educational purposes only simply by Nelson Rosario and Stephen Palley . They are not legal advice. They are our opinions only, aren’ to authorized by any past, existing or future client or company. Also we might change our thoughts. We contain multitudes.

As always, Rosario summaries are usually “ NMR” and Palley summaries are “ SDP”.




[related id=1]Monette Stephens v. Tokensoft, Inc. ou al., Cal. Superior Court (County of San Francisco, Case Number CGC-19– 574792, 3/26/2019) [SDP]

This particular lawsuit alleges age and sexual intercourse discrimination under California’ s Reasonable Employment and Housing Act (“ FEHA” ) against a company that will describes itself as providing “ institutional grade compliance for blockchain-based securities. ” (As a tip, lawsuits such as this one contains unproven allegations  —   the individual has the burden of proof as well as the defendant will have the opportunity to answer plus deny the allegations or look for dismissal of the claims).

According to the Plaintiff she is a fifty five year old woman who is a business plus technology leader with a B. S i9000. and M. S. in Electric and Computer Engineering who was earlier qualified with Series 7, twenty-four and 63 FINRA investment financial qualifications. She was hired simply by TokenSoft’ s CEO to act as Head of Corporate Development, for the set fee plus commission, without having benefits or equity.

In May 2018 she says the girl asked the CEO if the lady could accompany him to a blockchain conference in New York, presumably General opinion. He allegedly said there was simply no point in both of attending, however took a dude (younger) along with him instead and then hired your pet to be the Direct of East Coastline Operations and Business Development and after that (allegedly) hired another dude (also younger) to be head of Business Development. Both of them were employed as employees, with benefits plus equity.

When the lady confronted TokenSoft’ s CEO then he (allegedly) said “ he employed them after a venture capitalist friend advised him to hire ‘ youthful, hungry guys, ’ who would end up being willing to work under a primarily commission-based structure with a lower base income than [Plaintiff]. ” The particular Complaint says the CEO didn’ t allow her to attend every week sales meetings, “ even though [she] was part of the every week sales team and responsible for business growth. ” The Complaint proceeds with this fashion, detailing a narrative that will excludes the plaintiff from any kind of meaningful opportunity within the company plus instead throwing full support at the rear of the younger male employees.

While most people think of the government Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within employment discrimination cases, sex plus age discrimination claims generally need the employer have a minimum number of workers for federal claims to arise. Right here, the plaintiff filed under Ca state law, after first submitting with the California State Department associated with Fair Employment and being provided what is known as “ a right in order to sue” by that agency.

Bottom line  —   it doesn’ t matter if you are a blockchain startup or a lot of money 500 company, under U. T. law you can’ t discriminate against people because of their age or even gender. I’ m not saying happened here. The plaintiff has got the burden of proof. But remember that blockchain isn’ t a protection to be a horse’ s ass, when your V. C. really do tell you that you should focus on hiring “ young, hungry guys, ” think about finding a new V. C. of course not repeating that comment in order to someone who you later fire.


The Obstruct is pleased to bring you expert cryptocurrency legal analysis courtesy of Stephen Palley  ( @stephendpalley ) and Nelson M. Rosario  ( @nelsonmrosario ). They will summarize three cryptocurrency-related cases on the weekly basis and have given The particular Block permission to republish their particular commentary and analysis in full. Component III of this week’s analysis, Crypto Caselaw Minute, is above.




Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *