A past employee of the Chicago Blackhawks is pursuing legal action against the organization, alleging discriminatory practices and unjust dismissal, according to insights from The Athletic. Anthony Filomena, previously a public relations manager, asserts that he encountered prejudiced treatment from his direct superior due to his sexual orientation as a gay man. Furthermore, he contends that his termination occurred shortly after participating in an interview with Outsports.
The lawsuit was formally presented on Thursday, detailing Filomena’s accusations of enduring “hostile and aggressive actions” from his supervisor. It also highlights Filomena’s claim that his firing was a direct consequence of his interview with Outsports, a platform dedicated to covering LGBTQ+ related matters within the realm of sports.
Filomena states that he secured approval from Danny Wirtz, the chairman and owner of the Blackhawks, but alleges that his supervisor remained displeased.
The interview with Outsports was made public on April 29, 2024. The lawsuit indicates that a senior-level employee confronted Filomena about the interview three days later, expressing that his department was “very angry” about it.
Following the supposed confrontation with the senior employee, Filomena recounts informing his supervisor about the incident. Filomena voiced his conviction that the employee’s critique stemmed from discriminatory motivations.
Insights on Tom Dundon’s Acquisition of NBA’s Trail Blazers via Hurricanes Ownership Agreement
Chris Bengel
One day after Filomena’s reported discussion with his supervisor, specifically on May 3, 2024, his employment was terminated. The lawsuit explicitly states that the timing of Filomena’s termination serves as “direct evidence of retaliation.”
In a declaration provided to The Athletic, the Blackhawks refute Filomena’s allegations that his termination was in any way related to his sexual orientation or his participation in the Outsports interview. The team maintains that Filomena exhibited “multiple instances of misconduct over a period of six months” and had been issued a formal warning prior to his dismissal.
“The reason Mr. Filomena’s employment ended was due to multiple instances of misconduct over a period of six months,” the team expressed in a formal statement. “He was provided with multiple written notices specifying expectations, including a final, formal written warning prior to his termination. His termination was based exclusively on persistent misconduct and non-compliance with our established company policies.”
The lawsuit initiated by Filomena asserts that he received a “perfect rating” on his most recent performance evaluation, which had been conducted just a month prior to his termination. The lawsuit further contends that the team’s stated justifications for Filomena’s termination were “either completely made up, exaggerated beyond reality, or did not represent the true underlying cause for the decision.”
Within the framework of his lawsuit, Filomena is pursuing the recovery of back pay with accumulated interest, projected future earnings, reimbursement for lost benefits, coverage of attorneys’ fees, and both compensatory and punitive damages.
