Throughout my employment with LegalZoom, I repeatedly reported concerns regarding retaliation, harassment, intimidating workplace conduct, my health and safety, and my requests for reasonable accommodation. I also reported concerns regarding conduct that caused me to fear for my personal safety. These concerns were reported to management, Human Resources, executive leadership, and, when I believed my safety was at risk, to law enforcement.
In my view, Respondent's Position Statement focuses extensively on my personal life, my private blog, and my entrepreneurial activities instead of addressing the central issues before the EEOC: whether I was subjected to retaliation after engaging in protected activity, whether LegalZoom complied with its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and whether my termination was based upon legitimate business reasons.
During my employment, I documented concerns regarding what I believed to be threatening or intimidating workplace conduct. I reported concerns regarding discussions involving firearms and other workplace behavior that caused me to fear for my safety. I also documented what I believed to be threatening behavior by coworkers and repeatedly requested that these concerns be investigated. In my view, those concerns were not adequately investigated before my employment ended.
Respondent's decision to include excerpts from my personal blog and information concerning my private life has caused me significant emotional distress. My blog is not affiliated with LegalZoom. It is a personal platform where I have shared my life experiences, educational pursuits, and entrepreneurial endeavors. It has no bearing on my job performance or on the reasons given for my termination. While I was still employed, I reported my concern that employees appeared to be discussing or referencing information from my private blog despite the fact that I had never shared it with anyone at LegalZoom. The inclusion of those materials in Respondent's Position Statement has renewed those concerns and has caused me to fear that my private life continues to be scrutinized.
I have now been separated from LegalZoom since April 10, 2026. Since reviewing Respondent's Position Statement, I have experienced renewed anxiety and emotional distress. Because of my concerns regarding unwanted attention to my private life, I have shut down my personal blog and no longer feel comfortable sharing my life experiences publicly.
I also wish to address Respondent's references to my entrepreneurial activities. On March 17, 2026, I officially launched C.A.V. Enterprises, my holding company, under which I operate several businesses and "doing business as" entities. I am proud of those accomplishments. During my employment, however, I felt that my ambitions and business goals were criticized, ridiculed, or dismissed in ways that had no connection to my performance as a LegalZoom employee. My business ownership does not diminish my qualifications as an employee and is unrelated to the issues before the EEOC.
During my employment, I also documented statements that I believed contributed to a hostile and intimidating work environment. On or about March 10, 2026, I reported concerns regarding a statement by Jeremy that I interpreted as, "Let's kill it while we have time." I also recall repeated statements that "stress is good for you." Viewed in the context of my repeated complaints regarding retaliation and my deteriorating health, I found these statements disturbing and reported them because I believed they were relevant to my workplace treatment.
I further wish to address Respondent's allegations concerning my communications with customers. During a recorded discussion on April 9, 2026, I was informed that I was not being disciplined and that my position was not in jeopardy. Shortly thereafter, I was accused of telling customers that I was a paralegal. That allegation is inaccurate.
My standard statement to customers was:
"I am not a lawyer. I am only a studying paralegal."
At no time did I represent myself as an attorney or as a licensed paralegal, nor did I intentionally misrepresent my qualifications. When I requested that the relevant customer call recordings be reviewed so that the allegation could be verified or disproven, I was informed that the recordings would not be produced. I respectfully request that the EEOC obtain and review those recordings because they are the best evidence of what was actually said.
I also deny Respondent's allegations that I mocked customers or engaged in inappropriate sexual conversations with customers. To my knowledge, Respondent has produced no customer call recordings or other objective evidence substantiating those allegations. I believe those accusations arose only after I began reporting retaliation, hostile workplace conduct, and concerns regarding my treatment.
I further note that one workplace meeting included repeated references to the term "masturbation." I found the repeated use of that term to be inappropriate and uncomfortable. Rather than feeling like a routine performance discussion, I perceived the conversation as increasingly personal and intimidating. I ultimately recorded portions of that interaction because I believed it was important to preserve an accurate record of what occurred.
On April 10, 2026, I requested a formal performance review and a meeting to discuss my ADA accommodation request, my retaliation concerns, my wage concerns, and my pending EEOC charge. Instead of receiving the requested review, my employment was terminated later that day.
Based upon the chronology of events, I believe LegalZoom failed to meaningfully investigate my complaints, failed to fully engage in the ADA interactive process, and failed to adequately address the concerns I repeatedly reported to Human Resources and executive leadership. Instead, many of the allegations relied upon to justify my termination surfaced only after I engaged in protected activity.
I also believe Respondent's Position Statement devotes considerable attention to my personal life while giving comparatively little attention to the workplace concerns I repeatedly documented before my termination. I respectfully ask the EEOC to evaluate Respondent's Position Statement in light of the contemporaneous documentary evidence, the chronology of my protected activity, and the objective employment records.
Finally, I respectfully request that, upon completion of its investigation, the EEOC issue a Notice of Right to Sue if it determines that conciliation is not appropriate or otherwise concludes its administrative processing of my charge. I believe I have suffered significant economic loss, emotional distress, and reputational harm as a result of the conduct alleged in my charge, and I intend to pursue all remedies available under applicable law. My reference to damages exceeding $3 million reflects the relief I intend to seek in litigation if authorized to proceed and is not intended to alter the EEOC's role in investigating the merits of my charge.
