Allegations in a new lawsuit by a former Apple patent licensing executive paint a picture of an IP department where Caucasian men were groomed for promotions while women and minorities were overlooked for opportunities.
Jayna Whitt, formerly a director who handled patent licensing, has sued the company in California state court for wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Her complaint, filed just before the holidays, provides a perspective on the inner workings of Apple’s patent corps – alleging it is not favourable towards diversity and inclusion.
The filing in Whitt v Apple notes that Whitt started as patent counsel in 2006 where she assisted the company with high stakes litigation and licensing. This was just prior to the release of the first iPhone – an innovation that led to a rush of patent litigation (including Apple’s smartphone wars with Samsung). She climbed to director of patent litigation.
In 2012, Whitt switched gears to become director of IP transactions. It was there that she alleges she faced discrimination because she is a woman, Asian, has a mental disability of severe anxiety, has taken family medical leave, and more. Whitt claims Apple retaliated against her for reporting she was domestically abused by a male Apple colleague whom she was previously dating.
When the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct occurred, Whitt’s supervisor was BJ Watrous. According to LinkedIn, he is currently vice president and chief corporate and commercial counsel at Apple.
Her complaint alleges that Watrous favoured Caucasian males and “subjected minorities, females, and employees with disabilities to discriminatory treatment. This, Whitt claims, was reflected in, among other things, personnel decisions, mentoring, assignments, feedback, autonomy, trust, visibility and invitation to meetings”. Watrous promoted two white males to become senior directors, although Whitt claims in the suit that she was just as qualified or more so.
In 2018, the complaint says Apple reorganised the legal department – but its reorganisation planning group included only white males and the final plan gave promotions or lateral appointments to white males. The complaint alleges that other female and minority employees were surprised with the reorganisation and felt they should have had a chance to apply for higher positions or provide input on the reorganisation. As part the changes, Watrous appointed his successor – without granting Whitt an opportunity to apply, says the filing.
It adds in 2019 Whitt transitioned to part-time work (this followed two stints in 2018 in which Whitt took medical leave and then family leave). She alleges Apple retaliated in 2020 by demoting her and rescinding some of her restricted stock units.
In 2021, Whitt reported to her then-manager that “she was experiencing digital terrorisation” and needed Apple’s help to secure her iPhone and devices. The issue was “part of domestic abuse by her Caucasian male colleague” with whom Whitt had a personal relationship. Upon hearing of her abuse, Whitt’s manager required her to issue a report to Apple’s employee relations group. The complaint includes this summary of the situation:
Plaintiff emphasized from the outset that any investigation by Defendant must be confidential due to the escalation of domestic abuse, instability of the male colleague, severity of his and his associates’ potential criminal activity, sophistication of the digital security breach that required multiple actors, and the fact that the colleague was armed with at least two firearms that may not be registered. Shockingly, Defendant disclosed her allegations to the male colleague in question, over her vehement objections, which placed Plaintiff in greater danger.
Whitt alleges that Apple mishandled the employment investigation, would not help her to secure her digital devices, and eventually in 2021 issued a disciplinary citation claiming Whitt did not act professionally and interfered with Apple’s investigation into the abuse report.
Whitt’s essay
Things got worse in 2022 after Whitt published a personal essay in The Lioness about her alleged abuse and the way that Apple handled her employee relations report.
The man, another attorney at Apple whose identity is not revealed in the essay nor the lawsuit, also made “all sorts of claims” of being a drug and weapons dealer and other criminal activity. Whitt’s essay also details her beliefs that Apple’s employee relations group mishandled her abuse report. She explains that the issue is not limited to herself:
I would not be quick to call Apple out for one incident, but this experience was just one of many during my tenure that reflected a system and culture disproportionately disadvantageous to certain groups. Competition within Apple, even within teams, is fierce, and anyone viewed as weak or compromised will not survive. As one manager told me, “You’re swimming with sharks.”
…
Though I suspect this essay could bring my career at Apple to an end, I am writing it in the hopes that the company will change. If Apple treated me this way—a loyal, high-performing, long-term employee who’d reached the coveted director level—how is it treating others? A pool left with the fiercest sharks who managed to survive creates a hostile environment, is not diverse, does not lead to the best products, and should not be the goal. I would like to see an Apple where a dedicated employee who needs to work part-time is not demoted and stigmatized, where a person suffering from domestic abuse is not shamed and punished.
Alleged retaliation
According to the lawsuit, Apple immediately opened an investigation into Whitt’s workplace behaviour and potential violations of Apple policies. As it investigated, the company suspended her with full pay and benefits. But then in July 2022, she was terminated – which she claims was based on “pretextual accusations”, specifically, “violation of Apple’s Business Conduct policy, as it relates to conflicts of interest and being forthright and cooperative during an investigation”. This referenced a 2017 investigation which “included complaints against Watrous for showing discriminatory favoritism toward his Caucasian male mentee, with whom he had a longstanding personal relationship”, alleged the complaint.
Whitt contends she was really terminated because of Apple’s “discriminatory and retaliatory animus against her based upon her protected classes, as well as her public complaints of wrongful discrimination and retaliation”.
She has brought 10 claims against the iPhone giant and seeks to recover economic, non-economic and punitive damages.
