Vua v.. Icann (internet corp. for assigned names and numbers) et. tất cả.
Filed 8/13/24
King filed a complaint against ICANN on August 13, 2024 alleging 14 causes of action from Wrongful Termination to Gender Violence, Sự trả thù, and Defamation.
The complaint alleges that “Plaintiff Tanzanica King is ICANN’s second longest tenured employee with a stellar 22-year history. In exchange for her dedication, she has been subjected to the frat boy culture, having been repeatedly passed over for promotions, paid lower salaries than male colleagues, sexually harassed, and then wrongfully terminated for blowing the whistle. For all its poetic waxing of gender equality, ICANN is a rotted apple veiled by a thin shiny veneer.”
Plaintiff is also suing the alleged harasser, Nick Tomasso, and Allison Michael who allegedly intentionally covered up the harassment from the Board of Directors using her influence with other ICANN employees.
The complaint alleges that King was terminated from ICANN while on an unpaid leave of absence due to ICANN’s “downsizing.” ICANN alleges that the termination was for cost cutting and not in retaliation for Ms. King’s complaints about gender inequality at ICANN.
King is seeking $77,000,000 in damages and punitive damages to make sure ICANN does not treat other women the same way in the future.
For press inquires, contact our office.
Case Updates:
LOS ANGELES, CA — May 28, 2025 — In a landmark decision issued today, Judge Colin Leis, presiding in Department 74 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, denied a motion by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to compel arbitration in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by former longtime employee Tanzanica King. The ruling not only allows King to pursue her claims in open court—it also soundly rebukes ICANN’s effort to shield its misconduct from public scrutiny by forcing a survivor of workplace sexual abuse into a confidential, one-sided process that overwhelmingly favors employers.
In her lawsuit, Ms. King alleges a disturbing pattern of misconduct over her 22-year tenure at ICANN. She claims she was repeatedly passed over for promotions, paid less than male counterparts, and sexually harassed by multiple employees, including a senior executive who groped her, commented on her body, and made crude remarks in public settings. Ms. King further alleges that ICANN ignored repeated complaints about the harassment, undermined her credibility with a sham internal investigation, and ultimately terminated her shortly after she went on medical leave due to the stress and shortly after she filed for a right-to-sue letter.
ICANN claimed that King’s decades-old arbitration agreement, signed during her onboarding in 2002, should force her to resolve serious sexual harassment allegations in a closed-door arbitration process. Congress has since enacted the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), a sweeping reform that bars employers from burying such claims in private proceedings shielded from public accountability.
ICANN argued that it was somehow exempt from the bipartisan protections of the EFAA and attempted to carve its agreement out from federal law. The Court firmly rejected this position, holding that Ms. King’s claims are exactly the type of misconduct Congress intended to protect from forced arbitration.
In its ruling, the Court relied on the recent case Casey v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 575, affirming that the entire action is exempt from arbitration if at least one claim fits within the scope of the EFAA despite a choice of law provision in the agreement. Jones Day, representing ICANN, insisted that Judge Leis should disregard the binding precedent of the Appellate Court in the Casey ruling. Jones Day argued that their legal analysis of the relevant laws was superior to that of the appellate court. Judge Leis completely dismissed Jones Day’s arrogant assertions.
“ICANN tried to silence Ms. King and suppress the truth behind the secret walls of arbitration. This ruling affirms her right to tell her story in a public forum so that all can see what ICANN did to her,” said attorney Jonathan J. Delshad, counsel for Ms. King. “The Court’s decision makes clear that companies cannot use California law to escape accountability for sexual harassment and retaliation and make an end around the EFAA.”
This decision is expected to have broad implications for large employers attempting to enforce outdated arbitration agreements in the wake of the #MeToo movement and the federal reforms it inspired.
Trial proceedings in Vua v.. ICANN, et al. LASC Case Number: 24STCV20472 will now move forward in the Los Angeles Superior Court and is set for trial in July of 2027.
