Lyall v. Elsevier Inc.

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice federal claims brought by a former employee of a scientific journal publisher. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ business practices conflicted with their public climate-related pledges. The business activities that he contended were inconsistent included political contributions to politicians who “deny climate change,” provision of data services used by fossil fuel companies, and publication of journals on petroleum exploration and production. The plaintiff, who had purchased shares in one of the defendants “so that he had an avenue beyond his employment to push the company to improve its record on corporate social responsibility,” asserted a securities fraud claim. He also asserted a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and an analogous state law, alleging discrimination based on his climate advocacy. The court dismissed the employee’s securities fraud claim because it found he did not adequately plead economic loss and loss causation. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s ADA and the analogous state law claim because the plaintiff failed to file a timely charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Having dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims for wrongful discharge and promissory estoppel and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

A former employee of RELX PLC—which he called “the world’s largest global publishing house” that “owns the most renowned data analytics companies”—alleged that after working at the company from 2014 to 2020 he discovered that the company and two subsidiary companies (the defendants) were engaged in greenwashing because “their business conduct [was] actively supporting fossil fuel expansion while they pledged to protect the climate as part of their public-facing marketing.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misled shareholders, consumers, the scientific community, and the public. Alleged misrepresentations included signing on to the “Climate Pledge” to minimize climate impacts consistent with Paris Agreement goals and to support global efforts to achieve net zero emissions before 2050. The complaint alleged that the companies’ business practices were at odds with these commitments, including support for new fossil fuel projects after 2021, omitting mention of publication of journals for oil and gas technology and strategies for petroleum exploration, supporting (through a political action committee) “politicians who deny climate change,” working with companies “who have been prosecuted for perpetuating environmental harm,” and providing services and publications to support fossil fuel companies. The plaintiff alleged that when he “decided to speak up to Defendants regarding his climate-related concerns,” the defendants intimidated, harassed, and eventually terminated him. The plaintiff claimed that the company’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Securities Exchange Act. He also asserted claims of promissory estoppel and wrongful discharge in violation of clearly established public policy.