A 65-year-old former employee who says he was fired from The Broad museum in 2024 because a female executive considered him to be an “old white male” must take his claims before an arbitrator rather than a jury, attorneys for the downtown landmark contend in new court papers.
Richard Mitchell’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleges that the museum’s former COO based the plaintiff’s termination on his age as well his race, then made up an excuse to terminate him after an investigation by the human resources director found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mitchell.
The lawsuit also accuses The Broad of failure to prevent retaliation, and the COO of defamation for allegedly making false claims about Mitchell and his ability to do his job. But on Monday, museum lawyers filed court papers with Judge Gary Roberts arguing that Mitchell is bound by a 2015 employment agreement to arbitrate all work disputes. The Broad lawyers also want the lawsuit stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.
When defense attorneys reminded Mitchell’s lawyers of their client’s alleged arbitration agreement, they said he would not voluntarily submit to the process, according to The Broad attorneys’ pleadings, which further state that “plaintiff’s claims belong in arbitration, not before this court.”
A hearing on The Broad’s arbitration motion is scheduled for May 22.
In his suit, Mitchell says he was contracted as The Broad’s chief engineer in 2015 and later that year promoted to director of facilities, where he was responsible for all maintenance and operation of the museum. The COO, a Latina, was hired in March 2022 and from the outset was condescending toward the plaintiff, ignoring him entirely when she spoke, refusing to look directly at him and conveying negative body language in his presence, the suit filed Jan. 23 alleges.
The COO stated that she had worked in a “white man’s world” and that she did not want an “old white man” running the facilities department, according to the suit. The COO was “infuriated” that an investigation into Mitchell that she ordered the then-human resources director to conduct returned favorable views of the plaintiff and concluded that he was not a misogynist, according to the suit, which further alleges that she used pretextual reasons to terminate him anyway last April.