A judge has ordered a former employee for Oscar De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions Inc. to arbitrate his claims that the ex-fighter told him he would “be safe for as long as I remained loyal to him,” yet later fired the plaintiff.
Ramiro Gonzalez, now 68, says in his Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that the 51-year-old boxing promoter lured him in 2007 from his sportswriting job with La Opinion, where he had a “stellar reputation within the sports community,” to be Golden Boy’s public relations director “with promises of fortune and lifelong support.”
Gonzalez further contends in the suit brought in April 2023 that he contributed significantly to Golden Boys’ growth and management and that he assisted in covering up De La Hoya’s frequent “improper conduct ” and “illicit behavior.” demonstrating the harm that compounded the hostile work environment in which the plaintiff worked.
On Wednesday, Judge Lynne M. Hobbs granted a defense motion directing that Gonzalez’ claims be heard by an arbitrator rather than a jury. The De Lay Hoya attorneys argued in their court papers that Gonzalez entered into a binding arbitration agreement in March 2007 in which both sides agreed to resolve any employment disputes through that procedure.
After both sides submitted to the judge’s tentative ruling in favor of the defense, she finalized her directive, saying that despite all of Gonzalez’s claims of betrayal, the representations did not affect the arbitration motion because none of the claims addressed the arbitration agreement itself.
“In short, the only evidence before the court as to the parties’ intent to arbitrate disputes is the arbitration agreement executed by plaintiff here,” according to Hobbs, who additionally put the case on hold pending the outcome of the arbitration. She scheduled a post-arbitration status conference for May 23, 2023.
In a sworn declaration, Gonzalez had said he didn’t understand what he was committing himself to when he put pen to paper.
“This document was presented to me without any explanation and I was not informed that it would limit my rights or prevent me from bringing claims in court, particularly those based on Oscar’s personal promises,” Gonzalez said. “Given Oscar’s specific assurances about my role and security at Golden Boy, I understood my true employment terms to be based on the unique relationship I had with him, not the standardized paperwork.”
While recruiting Gonzalez, De La Hoya “made clear promises to me that went beyond what was typical in employment negotiations,” the plaintiff contended. “He assured me of his 100% support and loyalty, saying that my position at Golden Boy would be safe for as long as I remained loyal to him and the company.”
De La Hoya also allegedly often told Gonzalez that he could “expect a share in Golden Boy’s growth, including potential equity sharing as Golden Boy’s influence expanded,” the plaintiff additionally maintained.
Gonzalez said he “committed my professional efforts entirely to Golden Boy, often going above and beyond my role, knowing that my efforts were secure under Oscar’s direct assurance.”
Gonzalez also maintained that a mediation process between the parties earlier this year depleted his resources and that De La Hoya did not negotiate within the previously agreed upon range in which a settlement could be reached. De La Hoya’s side then moved to compel arbitration, according to Gonzalez.
“This reversal imposed a significant financial and emotional burden, creating an unfair advantage for defendants and delaying the resolution of my claims,” Gonzalez said.