BlackBerry Ltd. says in new U.S. court documents that former chief marketing officer Neelam Sandhu has presented no evidence her departure was discriminatory, retaliatory or improper. The Waterloo, Ontario company maintains Sandhu was let go in a major restructuring, not because she reported alleged harassment by chief executive John Giamatteo. The allegations remain untested in court.
What BlackBerry told the court
BlackBerry is asking the court to reject the remaining claims in Sandhu’s lawsuit, arguing the record does not support her version of why she lost her job. In the company’s account, her position disappeared as part of a major restructuring at the cybersecurity firm, a process that was separate from any complaint she had made.
That position puts the two sides in direct conflict over the same departure. Sandhu says she was pushed out after raising concerns. BlackBerry says the timing reflects a corporate reorganization, not retaliation, and that she has offered nothing that proves otherwise.
None of the allegations in the filings on either side have been tested in court, and the latest documents are arguments by one party, not findings by a judge.
The allegations behind the lawsuit
Sandhu launched her lawsuit against BlackBerry and Giamatteo in April 2024. She alleges Giamatteo sexually harassed her, including inviting her to dinner, caressing her hand and trying to put his arm around her waist, and that the company retaliated against her after she reported his behaviour to human resources staff and executives.
She was later let go and told the decision was part of a restructuring. Sandhu originally pursued the case under the name Jane Doe, but dropped the pseudonym after a judge said she needed to seek permission to use it.
BlackBerry and Giamatteo have previously argued her claims have no merit and fall well short of conduct that amounts to sexual harassment or discrimination. Earlier in the case, the company told The Canadian Press: “The plaintiff’s claims have no merit and BlackBerry is confident its motion will be granted.”
A broader pattern, or separate cases?
In filings made on Jan. 5 in support of Sandhu’s case, her lawyers argued she was not alone. They alleged at least three other women were fired after reporting what they described as a toxic, “boys’ club” culture at the company, and argued the women were dismissed for speaking up while the company pointed to cost-cutting.
Those supporting filings also described recommendations made by an outside law firm after an internal review, including a workplace culture survey, a pay equity audit, a review of how workforce reductions affect women, implicit bias training and the appointment of a diversity, equity and inclusion officer. The filings said Sandhu received a separation agreement valued at more than US$1.3 million.
BlackBerry’s latest response takes aim at that comparison directly. The company says Sandhu has no basis to draw similarities between the other women and herself, and argues the court should not treat the handful of experiences she pointed to as proof of a pattern.
A case a judge has already narrowed
The dispute now before the court is smaller than the one Sandhu first filed. A judge has already tossed out her hostile work environment and wage discrimination claims. What remain are her gender discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation claims.
That narrowing matters for readers following the headlines. A summary judgment fight, which is the stage this argument belongs to, asks a court to decide some or all of a case on the written record, without a full trial. BlackBerry’s filing is an attempt to show that, even on the documents exchanged so far, Sandhu cannot connect her firing to discrimination or retaliation. Sandhu’s side, in turn, has tried to widen the lens to the experiences of other women at the company.
The outcome will turn on which framing the court accepts: a single restructuring decision, as BlackBerry describes it, or one episode in a pattern, as Sandhu’s lawyers contend. Until a judge rules, both versions remain allegations and arguments, and the central question — why a chief marketing officer lost her job — remains undecided.
