Bowlero is located in Chelsea Piers, New York City.
CNBC
a former senior executive bowlerThe world’s largest owner and operator of bowling centers has asked a court for permission to prosecute its former employer after an executive threatened to report him to the FBI in a recorded phone call if he did not admit to leaking company secrets. Counterclaims such as extortion and retaliation. , according to a transcript of the interview filed in court.
Bolero’s former chief information officer, Thomas Tanase, filed a countersuit in federal court in Virginia on Wednesday after he and dozens of others filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming they were discriminated against because of their age or appearance. And was fired. There is potential for retaliation, according to the company’s securities filings and proposed countersuits. Bolero denied the claims.
The company went public through a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in late 2021 and is one of a select number of successful stocks to emerge from the SPAC boom. The company owns the two largest bowling brands – AMF and Lucky Strike – and operated more than 300 bowling centers in North America as of July. Bowlero’s annual revenue will nearly triple between 2021 and 2023, from $395 million to $1.06 billion, and sales are expected to grow 10% to 15% in fiscal 2024, according to company filings.
Tanase said in court documents that he started working in the company’s information technology department in 2001 and rose to the top management, working closely with the company’s CEO and often accessing sensitive information contained in the CEO’s email account. He said the company fired him in May because of his age and filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in August, a copy of which was included as evidence in a proposed countersuit.
Bolero said Tanas resigned and changed his mind when he realized he wouldn’t get a severance package. The company sued him in July, accusing him of hacking into Chief Executive Thomas Shannon’s email account, copying company files to a personal USB drive and refusing to hand over company-issued devices. Tanas denied the claims.
Now, Tanase is seeking court permission to countersuit against Bowlero and the company’s executive vice chairman, Brett Parker. Given the timing of the filing, federal rules required Tanase to obtain leave to counterclaim.
In the proposed countersuit, Tanase alleges that Parker threatened to report him to the FBI if Parker did not admit to accessing Shannon’s emails and “come clean” about the information he shared with Daniel Dowe, an attorney representing the EEOC complainants, and CNBC. he. has previously written about Bolero’s discrimination allegations. In a March deposition, Tanase testified that he had not spoken to CNBC or any other media about the company.
“You tell us everything you know”
In a June 2023 phone conversation between Tanase and Parker, Bowlero’s vice chairman and former treasurer allegedly requested Tanase reveals what he said and tells him that if he does so, all will be forgiven. The transcript is attached as evidence of the proposed counterclaim.
“You are our friend if you come clean…you tell us everything that happened…you tell us everything you know about Dowe, everything that happened to Dowe… … on CNBC,” Parker said during the conversation, according to the transcript.
“Then there might be a number, there might be a departure, and we can move on. But we have to know the truth and be completely clear,” Parker said, according to the transcript.
“You can… get back into our good graces, be our friend on this matter, and you’ll be paid to do so, but you have to start with the facts.”
According to the transcript, Parker told Tanas the company could give him a “severance package” if he explained everything and shared the information he disclosed, but “you really don’t want this to start with the police.”
“I can’t fight this internally, you’re going to be trying to explain to the FBI that some piece of equipment caused this, and I don’t want you to be in that position,” according to Parker, to the transcript.
“You have to help me help you,” he added.
In response, Tanas repeatedly told Parker that Shannon was in the hospital when his email account was allegedly compromised and had not shared any information with anyone, according to the transcript. As Bolero’s former chief information officer, he had previously accessed the CEO’s account and said the account may still be logged in on another device.
“I didn’t do anything illegal…I didn’t do anything malicious. I didn’t talk to anyone, I didn’t give any information to anyone. I’ve told you that before,” Tanas reportedly said. ” Transcript.
Bolero said the transcript simply showed the company was trying to extend an “olive branch” to Tanas if he admitted to the hacking charges.
“Mr. Parker did not mistakenly seek to obtain benefits from Tanase and he…acknowledged that he was ‘trying to help.’ In the face of Tanase’s hacking of Bolero’s computer system, Bolero and Messrs. Parker None of these actions are required,” Bolero said in the filing.
“In fact, what Tanase refers to as ‘extortion’ is clearly not such a thing. Therefore, even if Tanase had a private right of action for an extortion claim, the elements of such a claim are not met here,” the company said.
Tanas further claimed that Bolero filed the lawsuit against him in retaliation for his refusal to sign a termination agreement that required him to waive his right to take legal action against the company. He also claimed that Bolero sued him to prevent him from filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or serving as a witness in the investigation against Bolero.
Tanase’s attorneys are seeking about $8 million in racketeering damages and more than $27 million in retaliation claims from Bowlero.
Later Thursday, Bolero asked the judge overseeing the case to dismiss the counterclaim and sanction Tanas by issuing a default judgment in the company’s favor or preventing him from testifying further. The firm said in court documents that Tanas acknowledged that he had misstated facts in an earlier court affidavit that he later corrected, noting that he had retained at least three different law firms since the case arose. Place.
“Tanase has seriously damaged his credibility, and any testimony he provides in his defense will not rehabilitate him,” Bolero said in a memo. “In this case, in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process, the absence of The sentence is appropriate.” Supporting its request for sanctions.
Bolero’s attorney, Alex Spiro, of the law firm Quinn Emanuel, has also represented A-listers such as Elon Musk and Alec Baldwin. He said in a statement to CNBC that Tanase “will lose” his request to file a countersuit and will “almost certainly” be denied. ”
“Mr. Tanas is now seeking the court’s permission to file a baseless counterclaim against Bolero, five months after the deadline and five days before the fact-finding is concluded. This is a cynical attempt to deflect The focus on his bad conduct is fatally flawed, both on the merits and as a matter of law – Bolero is confident he will prevail in his case against Mr. Tanas,” Spiro said.
“His counterclaim is completely frivolous and we are charging fees to respond to his motion,” he said.
In response, Tanase’s attorney Scott Pickus told CNBC that if the court does not allow Tanase to file a counterclaim in the case, the lawsuit can and “most likely” will be filed as a new lawsuit. He said he “strongly” disagreed that the claims in the proposed counterclaim were frivolous.
He said he would not comment on Tanase’s remarks about distorting the facts.
“I would just like to say that we disagree with Bolero’s interpretation of the law, we disagree with Bolero’s version of the facts and look forward to a trial in this matter,” Picus said.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Investigation
Bolero has Involved in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation Since 2016, more than 70 former employees have claimed they were unlawfully fired.They claim Bowlero fired them because they were too old as it worked to transform hundreds of bowling alleys from what the company called “dirty” bowling alleys. Premium experience Serves quality food and drinks.
Complaints and an affidavit filed by three former employees, including Tarnas, allege that as part of the hiring process, Shannon held a “beauty contest” with potential employees via brief video calls to evaluate the candidates’ appearance.
Tarnas’ complaint accuses Shannon of “making racially charged, particularly inappropriate ‘blond woman’ jokes” and “consistently treating women as a lower class than men.” Tanase also claimed that the company’s policy banning Timberland boots and hats from being worn backwards was “designed to deter African-American men from using” the company’s bowling centers.
Based on Tanase’s complaints and company reports, the EEOC found probable cause in most of the complaints against Bowlero, including Tanase’s, while the remaining complaints remain under investigation.When the EEOC finds probable cause in a complaint, it means it believes Discrimination occurs.
According to previous reports by CNBC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had previously attempted to resolve complaints with Bowlero for $60 million in January 2023, but those efforts failed in April last year. The agency now has the ability to file a federal lawsuit against the company, but it’s unclear whether it will do so. EEOC commissioners need to vote on the matter before the agency can sue Bolero in federal court.
Bolero’s attorney, Spiro, told CNBC that the accusation of employment discrimination is “baseless.”
“The so-called equal employment opportunity issues are claims of age-based discrimination, some of which date back nearly a decade, and there has never been a civil or equal employment opportunity lawsuit related to these claims,” Spiro wrote in an email. litigation.”
Tanase’s attorney, Picus, said the EEOC’s finding of probable cause that Bolero engaged in discriminatory practices since 2013 “appears inconsistent with Mr. Spiro’s assertion” that his client’s counterclaim was “boring”.
“These EEOC findings are likely the reason why Bolero is suing Mr. Tanase. Bolero’s actions remind me of a sports cliché: The best defense is a good offense,” Picus added road.
“We look forward to proving both claims,” he said.
duel claims
The dispute that remains is whether Tanase resigned or was fired — a dispute that is at the heart of Bolero’s lawsuit, Tanase’s counterclaim and his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim, which are separate but related lawsuits.
Tanase said that before he separated from Bolero, the company began micromanaging him and harassing him by closely supervising his work in order to find reasons to fire him — according to his complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , he described the process as “management” and filed a counterclaim.
“Although Tarnas had suspected for months that his job might be in jeopardy, he never attempted to obtain confidential information, transfer property, or engage in any other selfish pursuit while having full access to Bolero’s offices, office files, and offices. conduct on the computer server,” Tanas’ attorneys wrote in the proposed counterclaim.
In the EEOC’s decision finding that Tanase’s age discrimination charge had merit, Director Rosemarie Rhodes wrote that the conduct of Lev Ekster, Tanase’s then-supervisor and now Bowlero president, “included unwarranted hostility, frequent criticism, and unnecessary criticism of his work.” correction and destruction.” His authority and role over subordinates and suppliers. ”
According to the lawsuit against Tanase, Bowlero claims that after Tanase separated from the company, he vowed to “revenge” his former employer and “bury” the company’s CEO. The company said in the lawsuit that Tanase told Bowlero Vice President of Human Resources Heather Webb that he had spoken with CNBC and several attorneys, including Dowe, about the company.
“Mr. Tanas said he would ‘walk away,’ which Ms. Weber understood to mean that he would no longer attempt to take action against either Bolero or Mr. Shannon if Bolero paid him a ‘severance package’ of $1.2 million.” To retaliate or retaliate.” “Bolero refused to pay,” Bolero’s lawsuit states. Tanas denied the claims.
About The Author
