Mysterio and Katie discuss the Smith v. Wayfarer Foundation et al. lawsuit and try to answer the questions you probably have.

📩 📄 Lawsuit Updates 📄 📩

Hello everyone, it's Mysterio and u/Katie151515 here, and we thought we should share our thoughts about Celeste C. Smith's lawsuit against Steve Sarowitz and the Wayfarer Foundation.

∗∗∗

Is this a real case or a nuisance case that should have been settled?

Mysterio: I think we need to differentiate the layman's definition here from the legal standpoint. While the legal standing is more iffy, I do understand why Celeste would feel the way she does. She feels she was unfairly discriminated against, and people's legitimate personal experiences should not be classified as a nuisance, in my opinion.

But the question to answer is: was she unfairly discriminated against?

I don't see it. I see instead a series of misunderstandings, some on Celeste's part, and I also can't help but see this as a PR play from Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. We have been hearing for weeks now that her team has been telling media institutions not to write about the great unsealing and the pending MSJ verdict yet, because something was coming and they needed to wait for it first. Many were speculating that perhaps Liman was going to rule soon and Blake was feeling confident about his ruling, hence the directive.

So, Wednesday night when the lawsuit was brought to my attention, my first thought was Fridays, amirite? —as the lawsuit was filed last Friday. I thought then it was going to be a race-play suit, but I wanted to wait until I read the complaint fully before making a decision. I wasn't surprised to learn that Temu Andrew Tate had 55 PowerPoint slides teed up about the case ready to go, which again buttresses my point about all of this being a Blake and Ryan play. Reading the complaint, I see Esra Hudson's style of writing all over it. I believe I wrote in a comment: "It has her classic 'lawyering' all over it. Emotional heartstrings, overblowing mundane things, sensationalizing everything for PR bite and headlines. All check."

So overall, I do get the feeling that Celeste feels wronged and that the Reynoldses are weaponizing it. It’s giving December 20, 2024 all over again.

Katie: Strip away the legal formatting and what you're left with is a hit piece and reputational assault on SS and Wayfarer. Nobody loads a discrimination complaint with references to Malcolm X and the Palestinian conflict because it helps their case in court. They do it because it makes the defendant look as toxic as possible in the press. That appears to be precisely what happened here – common workplace grievances buried under layers of inflammatory rhetoric chosen to paint Sarowitz as a racist, a religious bigot, and a public menace. The complaint contains dramatic, inflammatory (Esra Hudson-ified) language that goes beyond what is necessary to plead actionable discrimination claims. This is a complaint written for journalists, not judges.

⥈

What about the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue? How was she able to get it the same day?

Mysterio: Celeste was able to immediately get the right to sue because her charges include a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), not just Title VII and state rights. EEOC allowing ADEA cases to proceed while a plaintiff waits for a NRTS or conclusion of an investigation and the murky conversation to be had if the ADEA waiver covers the rest of the charges feels like an Esra Hudson loophole shenanigan, again adding to all of this reeking of Ryan and Blake.

Katie: As Mysterio stated, Smith received her EEOC right to sue letter on the same day she filed her charge suggesting that she requested immediate issuance rather than allowing the EEOC's standard investigative process to run its course. While early right to sue letters are technically permitted under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a)(2), I want to point out that it is an odd strategic choice because the EEOC process offers charging parties significant free benefits: the agency investigates on the plaintiff's behalf, compels document production, takes witness statements, and can issue findings of probable cause that carry evidentiary weight at trial. While technically allowed, by short-circuiting this process, plaintiff forfeited what amounts to free discovery and a potentially powerful investigative record. The decision is even odder given that the foundation was in the process of shutting down - meaning an EEOC investigation could have captured internal communications and records before they became harder to obtain. The haste with which Smith bypassed the EEOC's investigative process suggests to me that reaching an actual resolution was not the primary objective in filing this case – something else was.

⥈

Why don't you think discrimination occurred?

Mysterio: I think back to a recent video by NAG where she stated that most people mischaracterize what discrimination is, and most things people think are discrimination are actually just operational issues. This is the perfect case for that video. I would recommend everyone go watch the longer and then read the complaint; everything becomes clearer. But here is a short clip of what she says:

https://reddit.com/link/1riwwgu/video/s4zgmz60onmg1/player

What becomes increasingly clear is that what was at play were operational decisions being made and what I would call a lack of situational awareness, which I'll explain more a little down.

Katie: Smith's complaint largely ignores the most straightforward explanation for her termination: the Wayfarer Foundation was closing. On May 2, 2025, SS issued a formal statement announcing that the Foundation's board had unanimously voted to begin the sunsetting, with all operations winding down by the end of June 2025. The organizational shutdown affected every member of staff. Smith's termination is consistent with a legitimate, non-discriminatory business decision, and her earlier termination date relative to other staff is explained by the fact that as Senior Program Director, her role was among the first to become redundant as the Foundation wound down its grantmaking portfolio. The fact that retained employees were predominantly Baha'i is not surprising given that the Foundation was explicitly Baha'i-inspired since the beginning - meaning its workforce naturally skewed toward practitioners of the faith. The complaint contains no allegation that Smith ever applied for, requested, or was explicitly denied a position at Wayfarer Pathway - her discrimination claim rests almost entirely on the inference that because others were retained and she was not, discrimination must have been the cause. When an organization is shutting down and a streamlined successor structure is being built, the far more natural explanation for Smith's non-retention was operational necessity.

⥈

What are Celeste's main complaints?

Mysterio: That she was fired despite being promised the foundation would operate for at least 15 years (so her stability was yanked from her); that she was not allowed to interview nor was she considered for the position of executive director; and that she was not folded into another role after the foundation shut down. Katie, did I miss anything?

Katie: Celeste Smith, who is a 52-year-old Black Muslim woman, alleges that Wayfarer and SS subjected her to a hostile work environment based in racial and religious bias, passed her over for a promotion in favor of a younger white Baha'i candidate, and retaliated against her by terminating her employment nine days after she filed a formal internal discrimination complaint. She further alleges that her termination violated the ADA because it occurred while she was working under an approved medical accommodation, and that the subsequent transfer of Foundation staff to Wayfarer Pathways' successor department deliberately excluded her on discriminatory grounds. Finally, she claims detrimental reliance on a promise that the Foundation would operate for fifteen years, having left a stable position at the Pittsburgh Foundation to join an organization that shut down in less than four years.

⥈

If she was not allowed to interview nor was she considered for the ED position, how is that not discrimination?

Mysterio: Great question! This is the instance where I talked about lack of situational awareness, because she was interviewed for the role. She just didn't realize she was being interviewed for it, so she bombed it. One of the things we talk about as minorities is that bridging the gap with imbalance starts with access, and with access comes knowledge and an understanding of how certain things play out in certain roles.

Access tells you that the interview process for an executive director role is vastly different from that of a director or a VP. You search for an executive director, often hiring a recruiter to help with the search. The recruiter does the weeding out, and the top candidates get to meet with the owner(s) for breakfast or dinner, which is usually informal or semi-formal, never formal.

Celeste tells you when and how her interview happened in paragraphs 37 and 38.

https://preview.redd.it/vy164iq3onmg1.png?width=1627&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc90d8273b32abcfa1ad4243157ffcd40cea6472

She was invited to Steve Sarowitz's house for a breakfast meeting. She should have immediately realized what was going on. She goes on to say Sarowitz began asking her invasive, probing questions. Now that you know it was her ED interview, what do you think he was assessing? That's right: her personality. Then he shifted into operational and decision-making territory, especially around firing decisions. But because she came into the meeting with a different belief and didn't realize what was happening, she didn't realize she was failing the tests. She instead saw it as an "I need to push back on Sarowitz about his Baháʼí faith" moment.

Quick sidebar: I am not defending Sarowitz's Baháʼí zealousness; I don't know the man. But part of me wonders: is his behavior any different from that of any new convert to any religion? Don't new converts always go around sharing the gospel and wanting everyone to see the light? As long as it isn't affecting actual legal decisions, impeding others, or forcefully converting anyone, it's his right to share his religious beliefs and use his money however the hell he wants.

Back to the point: an executive director or CEO has to be more than a high-performing staff member. It's a very proactive search process where the end goal is identifying a strategic leader, not a manager. Celeste comes across, via the complaint (which may not be the best representation of who she is), as a genuinely excellent manager who had her own blind spot, one that prevented her from realizing what had happened on March 14, 2025. If she had, maybe we'd be in a different place.

A quick Google of Jenniffer Weigel, the person who became the executive director, shows she is a radio and television personality. I'd bet that when Sarowitz had his breakfast meeting with her, she immediately recognized what the meeting was and was able to take advantage of the opportunity. And this is what we talk about when we discuss access and having a seat at the table. What's the point of leaning in if nobody tells you it might require, say, a partner who can watch the kids the evening you need to stay late, or having a community you've built around to support you? There are certain conversations that aren't being had and need to be had more. But one step at a time.

Katie: While Smith alleges she was unfairly excluded from consideration for the Interim ED, the circumstances surrounding that appointment are more consistent with a legitimate executive selection decision than discrimination. When CEO Laura Herrick departed in January 2025, SS exercised his broad discretionary authority to select interim leadership for an organization he created and funded. Courts have long recognized that executive-level appointments, particularly interim ones made during periods of organizational crisis or transition, involve subjective judgments about trust, vision alignment, and leadership philosophy that are largely insulated from judicial second-guessing under employment discrimination law. The fact that no formal job posting or interview process occurred is not really suspicious because interim appointments at the executive level are routinely made through direct selection rather than competitive process, particularly in small nonprofit organizations where the board has direct knowledge of available candidates.

However, more fundamental to this issue is that by January 2025, Smith's relationship with SS had become openly adversarial. She had publicly challenged his conduct at the South Dakota conference, disagreed with his hiring preferences, and pushed back on his management philosophy. An employer's loss of confidence in an employee's loyalty and alignment with organizational leadership is a legitimate non-discriminatory basis for bypassing that employee for a senior leadership role. SS did not need to discriminate against Smith to justify not appointing her because he had an independently sufficient reason rooted in their fractured working relationship.

⥈

But she was excluded from strategy meetings and decision-making spaces?

Mysterio: Yes, because it wasn't just about the lack of situational awareness. What the March meeting shows is that Celeste's bias against Sarowitz clouds so much of her decision-making that it becomes a significant operational issue. If it could cause her to bomb an interview she says she really wanted, then you have to ask: what else would it affect? The foundation is Baháʼí-based; would she transfer her feelings about Sarowitz onto the rest of the staff? All of these are legitimate organizational concerns. Fucking sucks, though.

Katie: Smith's allegation that she was excluded from strategy meetings following her conflict with SS, while maybe frustrating, does not on its own constitute actionable legal discrimination. Courts consistently hold that exclusion from meetings, standing alone, does not rise to the level of an adverse employment action (we’ve heard that term before!) unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the exclusion resulted in a tangible harm to her compensation, title, or employment status. Being left off a meeting invitation, even repeatedly, is the kind of ordinary workplace friction that Title VII was not designed to prosecute. The natural explanation for Smith's exclusion is that by early 2025 her relationship with SS had become openly contentious. It is entirely normal and legally permissible for an executive to limit the involvement in strategic discussions of a subordinate with whom he has a deteriorating working relationship.

⥈

What about Weigel making her work beyond her work restrictions?

Mysterio: I think that might be one area where she has a case. But I don't think you can classify it as discrimination. I'm not sure of the exact term for failing to respect legal medical restrictions, but the company should be fined for that. Even so, it's not an institutional issue; it's a one-person thing, a new boss trying to impress the owner. And I think the statement "under the instruction of Defendant Sarowitz, became so severe and hostile" is one of those Esra Hudson lawyering moments, the "I can't be sued for defamation for what I put in a complaint, so I'm going to make the most horrible accusation I can" move. Because how does Celeste actually know that?

Katie: Let's be clear about what Smith is actually alleging here: her boss sent her some emails and made a few phone calls asking about work while she was on restricted duty. That's it. That's the ADA claim. Somewhere between the rib contusion and the federal courthouse, a manager following up on strategy documents became illegal disability discrimination - which would come as a surprise to the thousands of employers who routinely check in with employees on medical leave without anyone calling a lawyer. The ADA was not designed to guarantee that an employee on a reduced schedule never receives a work email she finds inconvenient. It was designed to prevent employers from denying or eliminating accommodations altogether. And notably, Smith never actually alleges that she was forced to work beyond her restrictions, only that she was asked to. If she said no and kept her four-hour schedule, the accommodation worked exactly as intended. If anything, Weigel comes across as an overbearing boss - which is an experience so universal it barely warrants a footnote, let alone a federal lawsuit.

⥈

Lastly, what do you think about Sarowitz wanting to hire his nephew?

Mysterio: It's his money, it's his foundation, it's his nephew. Who cares?

Katie: Nepotism has never won any awards for good governance, but last anyone checked, it isn't against the law. And courts have said as much repeatedly.

⥈

Any last thought?

Mysterio: I think this is a ploy from the Reynoldses to humiliate Sarowitz one last time. And on Wednesday evening, I told a couple of people, "oh my God, they never learn." It's wild to me why they think it's a good idea. I think a lot about Ange and Danny's read on the situation, and how someone probably needs to zoom the words out and highlight them in yellow, because the strategy and the logic are just stupid.

https://preview.redd.it/aj71e3t7onmg1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=a74284187bdcac4f24eb56eb27566a0614b15f10

https://preview.redd.it/6jtyq4t7onmg1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=8664220564d087e880fca39276b3426f01548f17

On Wednesday night I said, if Sarowitz was not planning on appealing, he sure would be now. It's the dumbest move I can see, but then that's par for the course. Because ego and not a lick of sense has been driving this case from the beginning.

But for the case itself, I think it would be interesting to see if this passes muster, specifically whether the non-ADEA parts can bypass the July 2025 Federal Court ruling that premature EEOC NRTSs are in fact invalid. That's right, the Federal Court ruled the EEOC must complete its 180-day investigation period before a plaintiff can proceed to court. I cannot help but think this is a gamble the queen of loopholes deemed worth taking. The worst that would happen, after all, is not that the case gets tossed, in layman's terms, but that Celeste gets sent back to the EEOC. And if this is the great PR scoop promised to media houses to prevent them from writing about the text messages, the impact would have already been done. But the stupidity of it all is that this sidebar mission is not newsworthy. Anybody with half a brain should have realized that, so it's not really an effective bait and switch strategy.

I do hope Celeste can get the closure she needs. Nobody deserves to be exploited, and like I said, I do get why she is mad.

Katie: It is difficult to read this complaint without thinking about the broader litigation environment in which it was filed. Coming right on the heels of the unsealing, this complaint doesn’t seem to be an earnest attempt to resolve a workplace dispute; it seems more like another weapon in Lively’s campaign to destroy SS and Wayfarer’s public reputation through litigation. The complaint's dramatic, overwrought (Esra-styled) language – which dramatically describes routine workplace interactions as acts of racial and religious discrimination - goes way beyond what is legally necessary to plead the legal claims. It appears deliberately engineered to generate inflammatory media coverage for SS and Wayfarer at a time Lively’s case is floundering. As you know, federal courts have public dockets and complaints are instantly accessible to any journalist looking for the next damaging Wayfarer headline - and I’m sure Lively knows how to get in touch with journalists. The timing, tone, and content of the complaint suggest that it wasn’t filed in good faith and instead was filed for Lively to continue her very public campaign of reputational destruction against Wayfarer and SS.

⥈