A former tech executive suing prominent investor John Ruffolo is pushing back on claims that she agreed to volunteer at Ruffolo’s new private equity firm to network and gain experience, and alleges she turned down what she calls a $50,000 “‘go away’ offer” before the firm closed its first fund this spring.

Chitra Anand—a doctoral researcher whose previous positions include chief brand and communications officer for Microsoft Canada, marketing director at Telus and operations director at OpenText—sued Ruffolo, his new firm, Maverix Private Equity, and his fellow managing partners Mark Maybank and Michael Wasserman last month, claiming they denied her pay for 18 months of work she said she did as a partner and CMO at the firm ahead of the close of its first US$500-million fund in April. She is seeking $3.4 million in damages and fees, claiming the defendants misrepresented themselves by leading her to believe she would be paid back wages for her work and offered employment when the fund launched.

In a statement of defence filed last week, Ruffolo and his partners asked for the case to be dismissed and claimed Anand had signed a confidentiality agreement consenting to work for free prior to the fund’s launch, and that they ultimately didn’t hire her because of what they claimed was poor performance and marginal contribution to the team. 

Her reply, filed Friday, broadly rejects the defendants’ claims. 

“It was only after the successful Launch of the Fund, that the Defendants, suddenly, and without warning, decided that she had ‘performance issues,’ and had never worked for them, but had only ‘volunteered’ for the last 18 months of her life,” the reply states. 

While she admitted to signing the confidentiality agreement, she argued it was signed solely “​to protect the Defendants’ confidential information.” In her reply, she claimed the clause in the document stating “no remuneration was required to be paid” was only valid “unless otherwise agreed in writing.” 

However, Anand said that on January 27, she received what she claimed was an employment letter from Ruffolo outlining her future compensation for when the fund closed, as well as a separate email stating she would get retroactive compensation when the fund raised $400 million (a target it surpassed). Anand argued those correspondences constitute a written agreement for remuneration.

She rejected the defendants’ claims that her work “provided nominal tangible value to Maverix and was not used in any significant way,” as they alleged in their filing last week. She also maintained—counter to the defendants’ allegations—that she was a partner at the firm and that Ruffolo asked her to lead like “a traditional CMO.”

In Friday’s court filings, Anand also alleges the defendants offered her $50,000 to settle the dispute regarding 18 months of unpaid work she claims to have done for Maverix before its fund closed in April. She claimed that what she called the “‘go away’ offer” was “wholly insufficient” and “did not even scratch the surface of the value and quantity of work from which the Defendants continue to benefit to date.” 

Neither Anand’s claims nor those made by the defendants have been tested in court. Lawyers for Maverix did not immediately reply to The Logic’s request for comment.

Anand’s submission includes statements from colleagues validating her contributions to Maverix. It includes letters from Bob Makinson, creative director of Deloitte Digital, and Caelin Williams, a designer at Chesterfield Creative, testifying that they worked with Anand on creating key branding material, including the Maverix website and logo.

It also references conversations with Maverix partners Dr. Eric Hoskins and Layth Ashoo expressing regret about her not being offered employment. “I am so completely shocked,” Anand claimed Hoskins wrote to her in an email. “You are a great person, selfless, professional, highly capable, a great team player and I have the greatest respect for you. This is so wrong.” 

“Given the Plaintiff’s instrumental role in the successful launch of Maverix Private Equity, it is the Plaintiff’s right to be compensated for the work, time, energy and value that she created, as one of its Founding Partners and members of the Team,” reads Anand’s reply. “Having placed her trust in the reputation of the Managing Partners and believing in their shared commitment to a bright future, the Plaintiff worked tirelessly to ensure the successful and smooth Launch of this enterprise, and had no reason to believe that after that had happened, that she would be tossed out as a mere ‘volunteer.’”