judge denies meta’s request to dismiss sexual harassment lawsuit filed by early employee

Meta Faces Lawsuit from Former Employee Kelly Stonelake

A legal challenge against Meta, initiated by former employee Kelly Stonelake, will proceed after a judge rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case.

Judge Allows Parts of Lawsuit to Move Forward

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein determined that certain aspects of Stonelake’s allegations possess sufficient legal standing, allowing the lawsuit to continue. This ruling was made earlier this month while overseeing the proceedings.

Stonelake expressed hope that the decision will empower others who have endured similar experiences. She stated, “I hope this ruling encourages others who have experienced discrimination and toxic workplace cultures to consider the courts as one way to push for justice and accountability,” as reported by TechCrunch.

Allegations of Harassment and Discrimination

Stonelake, who was employed at Meta from 2009 until a layoff in early 2024, filed the lawsuit in Washington state. Her claims center around allegations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and subsequent retaliation.

Meta initially sought to move the case to federal court and have it dismissed, arguing that Stonelake’s claims lacked legal validity. The company has not issued a comment regarding the lawsuit or the judge’s ruling.

Details of Stonelake’s Complaint

The initial complaint details several instances where Stonelake asserts Meta failed to address reported incidents of sexual assault and harassment. She also alleges a pattern of being overlooked for promotions in favor of male colleagues.

Furthermore, Stonelake claims she experienced retaliation after raising concerns about a video game she believed was racially insensitive and potentially harmful to young people. She contends that these conditions significantly impacted her mental health, necessitating medical intervention.

Motivation for Filing the Suit

In February, Stonelake explained her decision to pursue legal action, stating her desire to hold Meta accountable for what she describes as a widespread pattern of abusive behavior.

She emphasized Meta’s unique capacity for harm, noting, “Meta has the opportunity to do harm on a scale that only tech companies can.” Meta previously declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Meta’s Argument for Dismissal

In its motion to dismiss, Meta argued that Stonelake “fails to and cannot allege any viable claims against Meta.” The company also asserted that her claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation were outside the timeframe allowed by the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).

Judge’s Partial Rejection of Meta’s Motion

The judge has partially disagreed with this argument. Documents filed on August 21 indicate that portions of Stonelake’s claims related to retaliation, failure to promote, and sexual harassment are sufficient to proceed.

However, the judge dismissed specific claims concerning other allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. Stonelake’s request to amend her filing was also denied.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

Both Stonelake and Meta are now required to submit a joint status report, with a deadline in mid-September.

Broader Context of Allegations Against Meta

Stonelake’s case is one of several high-profile allegations Meta has recently faced.

Shortly after Stonelake initiated her lawsuit, Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former public policy leader at Facebook, published her memoir, “Careless People.” In the book, she detailed allegations of sexual harassment by a supervisor and subsequent retaliation after reporting the incidents.

Meta refuted the claims made in the memoir. A judge subsequently sided with Meta, preventing Wynn-Williams from marketing the book after determining she had likely violated her non-disclosure agreement.

Additional Information

• The case is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein.
• Stonelake worked at Meta (formerly Facebook) for approximately 15 years.
• The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) is a key legal framework in this case.