PTAB Chief Accusing Former Employer of Sexual Orientation, Disability Bias
Chief Judge David Ruschke alleges he was laid off from Medtronic's in-house department for pretextual reasons in 2015.
June 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM
5 minute read
The chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is suing his former employer, Medtronic Inc., alleging the company wrongfully terminated him because of his sexual orientation and a heart condition.
David Ruschke's 34-page complaint, which also names longtime Medtronic Chief Patent Counsel Michael Jaro as a defendant, was filed in California state court last fall but recently removed to federal court in Oakland. It alleges that Medtronic terminated Ruschke without notice or cause in a single-person reduction in force in November 2015, despite 12 productive years with the company.
The layoff was “mere pretext,” Ruschke alleges, for “a pattern and practice of unlawful sexual orientation discrimination” against him as an openly gay man. Medtronic also failed to engage with him about accommodating a heart condition that required treatment during 2015 and 2016.
Medtronic and Jaro are represented by Winston & Strawn partner Laura Petroff and associate Raquel Mason. They filed an answer in April denying each allegation and called the suit a “frivolous, unfounded, and unreasonable action.” They're requesting attorneys' fees under California law.
Ruschke is represented by Dow Patten of Los Angeles' Smith Patten.
➤➤ Want IP news that goes deeper? Geek out with Scott Graham's email briefing, Skilled in the Art. Sign up now.
Ruschke brought a prestigious background to the role of chief judge when he was hired in May 2016. The PTO introduced him as the manager of patents at Medtronic's Coronary and Structural Heart business unit. He also was secretary of the board of the American Intellectual Property Association at the time. It was not widely known that he'd been laid off from Medtronic.
The PTAB has been under fire for years from patent owners, who've called it a “death squad” that mows down patent rights. But Ruschke himself hasn't been the focus of much criticism. Under his leadership, patent owners have statistically fared somewhat better than under his predecessors.
In his complaint, Ruschke claims to have “singlehandedly identified defects in certain competitors' patents” that saved Medtronic $50 million in royalty payments, while protecting Medtronic patents that generate more than $30 million in annual revenue. Overall, he claims his efforts “resulted in well over $100 million to the bottom line of Medtronic.”
But the complaint goes on to detail a litany of corporate politicking that allegedly cost Ruschke his job. The trouble seems to have started around 2012, when an attorney Ruschke describes as “a polarizing figure” was added to his team. Ruschke complained to HR that his supervisor and HR were undermining his authority and creating a hostile work environment for him as a manager. The employee was eventually dismissed, but not before a meeting with Jaro and other supervisors that left him feeling the work environment “was becoming increasingly hostile.”
Jaro and Ruschke's new supervisor, Betsy Van Hecke, confronted Ruschke during his July 2015 performance review about being noncommunicative, but Van Hecke allegedly could provide only a single example, the complaint alleges.
“After Ms. Van Hecke left the room visibly angry and waving her finger at Dr. Ruschke, Mr. Jaro fist-bumped Dr. Ruschke and said that he had done a great job of defending himself,” the complaint states. Nevertheless, Jaro informed him that his annual bonus would be reduced 10 percent, the complaint states.
Jaro did not respond to an email sent to the address he has registered with the State Bar of California.
Afterward, Ruschke was issued a warning about his delayed reporting of expenses, and a memo detailing expectations regarding response time to emails, attendance at “coordination meetings” with other supervisors and the like, all of which were to be addressed in his annual review objectives.
Ruschke complained to HR that the restrictions were “so unprecedented and out of the ordinary for someone of Dr. Ruschke's experience and performance, that Dr. Ruschke could only conclude that they were being imposed because of his sexual orientation.” An HR rep abruptly stopped the conversation, but the department never conducted an investigation, the complaint alleges.
Instead, Jaro and HR told Ruschke in November he was being let go to free up money for other positions. “This 'reduction in force' apparently applied to a single person—Dr. Ruschke—which in and of itself is highly suspect,” the complaint states. It goes on to contend that Ruschke's business unit had already achieved substantial cost savings by terminating one attorney and by accepting a poor performer from Jaro's group whom Jaro allegedly didn't want to fire because she was an Asian-American woman.
Ruschke's complaint outlines a history of heart trouble, including a 1999 stroke and subsequent surgery to replace a faulty aortic valve. Around 2013, he began experiencing renewed difficulties, and in January 2015 he was told he'd need a second open-heart surgery.
“Medtronic knew at all relevant times that Dr. Ruschke was disabled, yet it failed to take any action whatsoever to engage with Dr. Ruschke to accommodate his disabilities after becoming aware of them,” the complaint alleges.
Medtronic let Ruschke remain on its payroll for two months following the RIF, the complaint states, but served out-of-office voice and email messages indicating that he'd left the company. “These actions caused Dr. Ruschke to be portrayed as having fallen off the face of the earth or abandoned his job,” the complaint states. “Such a no-notice departure would be highly out-of-character for such a distinguished patent counsel.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250