Former Meta Employee Sues After Stalker, Initially on ‘Do Not Hire’ List, Is Rehired

A former Meta employee, James Napoli, has filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, alleging negligence and violation of New York City’s human rights law. The suit details how a coworker, previously placed on a “Do Not Hire” list after stalking and harassing Napoli, was inexplicably rehired by Meta after significant layoffs and restructuring within the company’s talent acquisition department. Napoli claims this rehiring, coupled with subsequent alleged retaliation for reporting the incident, created an unsafe and hostile work environment. The case highlights concerns about the potential consequences of rapid staff reductions on workplace safety and the effectiveness of internal HR processes in large corporations.

Key Takeaways: Meta’s Rehiring of Stalker Sparks Lawsuit

• Former Meta employee James Napoli sues Meta for negligence and violating New York City’s human rights law.
• A coworker, “G.F.,” previously placed on a “Do Not Hire” list for stalking and harassment, was rehired after Meta’s layoffs.
• Napoli alleges retaliation after reporting G.F.’s rehiring, leading to reduced responsibilities and project removal.
• The lawsuit raises concerns about the impact of mass layoffs on workplace safety and HR effectiveness.
• The case underscores the importance of robust background checks and HR processes in preventing similar incidents.

The Stalking and Harassment Allegations

Initial Contact and Escalation

The lawsuit details how G.F., a former colleague, began contacting Napoli after his layoff from Meta in November 2022. Initially, G.F. requested a coffee, during which he made “disturbing” comments referencing hearing voices and divine messages about Napoli. This marked the beginning of a pattern of escalating harassment and stalking. G.F.’s communications intensified, reaching up to 30 messages daily. His messages progressively incorporated personal details about Napoli’s family, partner, friends, and even his dog, Luigi.

Intrusion and Fear

The harassment extended beyond online messages. G.F. tracked down Napoli’s address and delivered a “large ream of disturbing writings and drawings” to his apartment, forcing Napoli and his partner to relocate. The lawsuit describes Napoli’s experience as “terrifying,” citing significant emotional distress and fear for his safety and the safety of those close to him. He considered a restraining order, but New York state law restricts such orders to individuals with intimate or familial relationships to their stalker. This limitation highlights a critical legal gap in protecting victims of workplace stalking.

Initial Reassurance and Subsequent Shock

Napoli repeatedly reported G.F.’s actions to Meta’s HR department. In September 2023, he received assurances that G.F. was on both a “Do Not Hire” and a “No Entry” list, preventing him from being rehired and entering Meta’s premises. However, just four months later, Napoli discovered that G.F. had been reinstated, this time as a contractor. This revelation caused immense distress, shattering Napoli’s trust in Meta’s HR processes and commitment to employee safety. “I trusted that my employer would be able to keep me safe,” Napoli told CNBC.

Meta’s Layoffs and the Fallout

The Context of Layoffs

Meta’s significant layoffs, totaling 21,000 jobs, including a substantial reduction in the recruiting and HR teams, occurred in the context of a company-wide “year of efficiency.” While the cost-cutting measures have been well-received by Wall Street, the lawsuit suggests unintended negative consequences. The lawsuit argues that the drastic cuts resulted in a less effective hiring process, allowing G.F. to slip through the cracks. “Meta’s employment practices … are so chaotic, reckless, and ineffectual,” the lawsuit states. This points to a potentially systemic failure in safeguarding employee safety during periods of significant restructuring.

Allegations of Retaliation

Beyond the rehiring of G.F., Napoli’s lawsuit alleges retaliatory actions from Meta following his repeated reports of the harassment. He claims that after voicing his concerns, he was removed from high-profile projects, including a leading role in an AI marketing campaign. This alleged retaliation for reporting safety concerns further underscores the severity of the situation and potentially exposes a failure to protect whistleblowers.

The Legal Battle and its Implications

Demand for Damages and Reforms

Napoli’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the emotional distress, fear, and professional setbacks caused by G.F.’s actions and Meta’s alleged negligence and subsequent retaliatory conduct. Importantly, the lawsuit also demands a court order preventing G.F.’s rehiring at Meta and prohibits any future discriminatory or retaliatory acts against Napoli. “I want to be able to do my job…without feeling like the shoe is going to drop,” Napoli expressed to CNBC. His legal action aims not just for personal redress but also to influence systemic change within Meta’s HR practices.

Broader Implications for Workplace Safety

The case highlights a broader issue about workplace safety, especially in the wake of large-scale corporate layoffs. It raises serious questions about how companies can ensure the safety and well-being of their employees, even during periods of restructuring and cost-cutting. The lawsuit suggests that prioritizing financial efficiency over robust HR processes and employee safety can have disastrous consequences. The case has the potential to trigger conversations regarding industry standards for background checks, workplace harassment policies and procedures, and the responsibility of large corporations to protect their employees from harm.

Meta’s Response and Moving Forward

At the time of publication, Meta had not released an official statement addressing the lawsuit. However, the allegations raise crucial questions about the company’s internal processes and commitment to employee safety. The outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact future HR practices within Meta and potentially set a precedent for other large corporations undergoing similar restructuring, emphasizing the critical balance between efficiency and employee well-being.