Listen to the article 3 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:

• An Israeli former vice president of engineering for Intel agreed to dismiss his unlawful termination and retaliation lawsuit against the company without prejudice, according to court documents filed Feb. 20.
• The plaintiff alleged in an August 2024 complaint that Intel fired him after his co-worker filed a complaint on his behalf claiming that the plaintiff’s supervisor expressed support for Hamas on social media. The plaintiff, who had served with the Israeli army, said he was the only Israeli employee working under the supervisor. He further alleged that Intel took no action in response to the complaint and discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin.
• The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, but the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied his request, finding that “the strong interests in favor of open proceedings” outweighed those of the plaintiff. The court later stayed the case while the plaintiff appealed the anonymity decision to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He later moved to dismiss the appeal and the 2nd Circuit granted that motion on Feb. 24.

Dive Insight:

The outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas created immediate concerns for the region’s employers, and several multinational corporations with operations in Israel took steps to protect employees such as closing local stores and offices. But the war also caused tensions within U.S. workplaces as HR departments dealt with harassment and discrimination concerns, particularly with respect to Jewish, Muslim, and Israeli and Palestinian workers.

In response to those developments, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published a guidance document outlining anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern, anti-Muslim and antisemitic workplace policies and practices that would constitute illegal discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff’s complaint against Intel cited several instances of harassment and violence against Jews in New York City — where the employee resided — to support his ability to proceed with his discrimination claims anonymously. But the district court held that the plaintiff’s highlighting of such incidents did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that he personally faced a risk of nonspeculative harm. It also noted the potential risks to defendants in the suit.

“Were the general existence of discrimination a sufficient reason to proceed anonymously, then scarcely any discrimination cases would be exempt,” the court said. “Moreover, as Defendants note, Plaintiff’s interest in anonymity due to the risk of harm is not one-sided; rather, it must be balanced against the corresponding interest that Defendants face having been publicly named in Plaintiff’s suit.”