RIZZO v. NUTANIX, INC. et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY THE HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 3/31/2021. 3/31/2021 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sfl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMUEL P. RIZZO,
NUTANIX, INC. et al.,
Samuel Rizzo alleges that his former employer defamed him when management discussed
alleged concerns with Mr. Rizzo's client interacting skills. Nutanix, Inc., Michael Granit, and
Phillip Spear move to dismiss the sole count in the complaint on the grounds that it is time barred,
fails to state a claim, and was not procedurally exhausted before the EEOC. As to the statute of
limitations, Mr. Rizzo concedes the complaint was filed over a year after the allegedly defamatory
statements were published but he maintains that the so-called discovery rule salvages his
complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Samuel Rizzo is a former employee ofNutanix, an information technology company that
provides cloud services to its customers. One of its customers is Ernst and Young. Mr. Rizzo was
assigned to the EY account as a program manager. Doc. No. 1. (Compl.) ii 1.
Mr. Rizzo alleges that his manager, Michael Granit, called him on October 3, 2019 to
inform him that he was being removed as program manager of the EY account. As Mr. Rizzo
recounts, Mr. Granit explained that a September 26, 2019 email Mr. Rizzo had sent to EY caused
"extreme offense" to the client and that EY requested that Mr. Rizzo be removed from the account.
iiii 9-11. Mr. Granit relayed that EY saw the email as questioning the client's decision-
making. Id. ,i 11. Mr. Rizzo does not
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?