Cases Against Philipp Plein Alleging Homophobia Continue
While the Supreme Court of New York dismissed one case against the designer, another alleging homophobia and discrimination remain ongoing.
MILAN — A case claiming that Philipp
Plein made homophobic comments and discriminated against a former employee continues in a New York court.
The case was brought by Amrop Alsoleibi, a former Plein regional manager, who in February 2021 accused the designer and the American arm of his brand in a New York court, claiming Alsoleibi was discriminated against in the workplace and retaliated against, ultimately resulting in his wrongful firing.
Plein denies the allegations.
A separate case of, Talal Atassi v. Philipp Plein Americas Inc., received a summary judgment on April 6 in the Supreme
Court of New York. Atassi was seeking compensation from Philipp Plein for recruitment services allegedly rendered through an agreement with Alsoleibi.
Judge Louis L. Nock ruled on that case, dismissing it. However, that case had no bearing on Alsoleibi’s allegations of homophobic behavior and discrimination.
An article in WWD on April 15 incorrectly stated that Plein had been cleared of those allegations, but that Alsoleibi’s case is ongoing.
Atassi declined to comment on the Supreme Court decision.
Alsoleibi’s attorney said, “Mr. Atassi’s lawsuit is an entirely separate matter, and this decision does not impact Mr. Alsoleibi’s claims against Philipp Plein and Philipp Plein Americas. Mr. Alsoleibi’s case is still in its early stages. We are confident that when this case does eventually make it in front of a jury, they will confirm the allegations that Mr. Alsoleibi was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of his sexual orientation and disability.”
Carmine Rotondaro, Plein’s business adviser, sent this statement to WWD: “Having regard to the relation between the Plein Group and Mr. Alsoleibi, the recent decision court notes that ‘defendant’s termination of Alsoleibi shortly after discovering the contract casts serious doubt on the scope of his authority, an issue that must be resolved at trial. Nor, on the present record, can defendant be said to have ratified the contract by hiring candidates procured by Atassi; Alsoleibi concealed Atassi’s existence from defendant until shortly before he was terminated.’
“The above findings of the court explicitly address the circumstances of the termination of Mr. Alsoleibi’s employment and point at a behavior (trying to bind the employer without authority and concealing from the employer the existence of the allegedly hired service provider) which clearly constitutes serious and sufficient ground for the termination of Mr. Alsoleibi. This misconduct was the reason why the employment of Mr. Alsoleibi was justifiably terminated. Any allegation to the contrary, including employment termination on grounds of sexual orientation or health status, appears inconsistent with the court’s decision.”
In February last year, as reported, Alsoleibi, a former Philipp Plein regional manager, sued the fashion designer and the American arm of his brand in a New York court, claiming he was discriminated against in the workplace and retaliated against, ultimately resulting in his wrongful firing.
In the lawsuit, Alsoleibi accused the designer of making repeated homophobic comments to him and allegedly other gay employees, and of canceling his health care and eventually terminating his employment in retaliation for his sexuality, as well as it becoming known that Alsoleibi is HIV-positive. Before working for Plein, Alsoleibi worked for more than a decade in sales and management for a number of luxury brands, including Chloé, Etro, Fendi and Valentino.
“[Plein] frequently affirmed and fostered the macho and toxic masculinity image of his business,” Alsoleibi said in his complaint.
Through Rotondaro, Plein has firmly rejected the allegations, calling them “baseless and defamatory.” He contended the allegations of “anti-gay discrimination feelings and conduct… never existed, never happened and never had any place, neither in the heart of Mr. Plein nor in any part of his company.”
In his lawsuit, Alsoleibi claims that around the time he began to openly note the offensive nature of Plein’s remarks and make formal complaints, the company allegedly sent him a “warning letter” regarding his performance, which he said was merely to build “pretext” for his eventual firing. He claims that during his management, Plein stores under his region reached $12 million in annual sales.
His termination came to pass in early 2019.
“Alsoleibi was terminated as a direct result of his sexual orientation and HIVpositive status, and was in retaliation for his multiple complaints about defendants’ unlawful employment policies and hostile work environment,” the complaint alleged.
In the Supreme Court decision on April 6, Nock stated that Atassi, as chief executive officer of ASAP Staffing Services LLC, and Alsoleibi “entered into a contract pursuant to which ASAP Staffing was to provide recruitment services to defendant.”
According to this contract, for each potential hire brought to Plein by Atassi, the fashion house would pay him 20 percent of that person’s annual salary, the court papers explained.
Atassi asserts that the contract took effect in November 2018, and “pursuant to the contract, he found and placed 10 candidates with defendant.” He stated that the total compensation owed is $97,568, which Plein has refused to pay.
Plein, in response, claimed that the contract was invalid “because Alsoleibi never had the authority to bind defendant to it.”
In addition, Plein “further asserts that no one…other than Alsoleibi was aware of the contract, in part because Alsoleibi went to great lengths to conceal Atassi’s part in recruitment for defendant.”
On Jan. 25, 2019, Alsoleibi revealed Atassi’s existence to Plein by copying him on an email involving the company’s new head of recruiting. Six days later, Plein terminated Alsoleibi “for purporting to enter into the contract on defendant’s behalf ‘without the authority or authorization to do so,” states the court document.
The plaintiffs filed the summons and complaint on June 28, 2019, and requested summary judgment.
“The primary issue relating to the parties’ contract is whether Alsoleibi, as a manager of defendant, had the authority to bind defendant to the contract. Plaintiffs assert in their moving paper, without any supporting evidence, that Alsoleibi had authority to bind defendant. Defendant, in turn, argues that he had no such authority, and offers
Alsoleibi’s termination letter, which states that he was fired because he purported to bind defendant without the authority to do so,” continues the court document.
In reply, Atassi belatedly offered another recruiting contract that “Alsoleibi signed on behalf of defendant shortly before the contract at issue herein, apparently without objection from defendant.”
“The record contains no evidence of any contact between defendant and Atassi until shortly before the contract was terminated and Alsoleibi was discharged,” states the court document. “Atassi testified that he had never discussed his recruitment business with anyone at defendant other than Alsoleibi, and made no independent effort to verify Alsoleibi’s authority to bind the company prior to entering into the agreement. It was his responsibility to make such efforts. Whatever representations Alsoleibi may have made to Atassi regarding his authority are insufficient; authority derives from the acts and representations of the principal, not the agent.…Indeed, defendant’s termination of Alsoleibi shortly after discovering the contract casts serious doubt on the scope of his authority, an issue that must be resolved at trial.”
Alsoleibi concealed Atassi’s existence from defendant until shortly before he was terminated, writes Nock and, in his ruling, the judge ordered that “plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgments is denied.”