A 65-year-old former employee who says he was fired from The Broad museum in 2024 because a female executive considered him to be an "old white male" must take his claims before an arbitrator rather than a jury, a judge has ruled.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts granted a motion by attorneys for the downtown landmark to compel binding arbitration of plaintiff Richard Mitchell's case. The judge, during the same May 22 hearing, also put the lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the arbitration and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 3.
In his suit, filed Jan. 23, Mitchell alleges that the museum's former COO based the plaintiff's termination on his age as well his race, then made up an excuse to terminate him after an investigation by the human resources director found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mitchell.
The lawsuit also accuses The Broad of failure to prevent retaliation, and the COO of defamation for allegedly making false claims about Mitchell and his ability to do his job.
In their court papers arguing in favor of compelling arbitration, museum lawyers contended that Mitchell was bound by a 2015 employment agreement to arbitrate all work disputes. When defense attorneys reminded Mitchell's lawyers of their client's alleged arbitration agreement, the plaintiff's lawyers said Mitchell would not voluntarily submit to the process, according to The Broad attorneys' pleadings.
Mitchell contends he was contracted as The Broad's chief engineer in 2015 and later that year promoted to director of facilities, where he was responsible for all maintenance and operation of the museum.
The COO, a Latina, was hired in March 2022 and from the outset was condescending toward the plaintiff, ignoring him entirely when she spoke, refusing to look directly at him and conveying negative body language in his presence, the suit alleges.
The COO stated that she had worked in a "white man's world" and that she did not want an "old white man" running the facilities department, according to the suit.
The COO was "infuriated" that an investigation into Mitchell that she ordered the then-human resources director to conduct returned favorable views of the plaintiff, concluding he was not a misogynist, according to the suit, which further alleges that she used pretextual reasons to terminate him anyway in April 2024.