Former BlackBerry employee Neelam Sandhu is set to take the tech company to trial on May 12, 2026, in what appears to be a workplace retaliation case stemming from discrimination complaints she raised during her employment. The case has been narrowed significantly after the court previously granted summary judgment dismissing discrimination and harassment claims, leaving only retaliation claims against the company.
Judge Kim granted most of BlackBerry's motions in limine while allowing Sandhu limited ability to discuss her underlying discrimination beliefs. The court ruled that Sandhu "may not discuss her belief that she was the victim of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin unless she can tie that belief to a complaint she raised with Blackberry before her employment was terminated." However, Kim noted that Sandhu "may use the terms 'discrimination,' 'harassment,' and 'boys' club' when discussing her belief that Blackberry violated the law."
The judge emphasized the narrow scope of the remaining case, writing that "her claim for relief in this case is limited to retaliation but that she must prove her reasonable belief that Blackberry violated the law by discriminating against her or harassing her." The court will provide limiting instructions to the jury explaining these constraints on Sandhu's testimony.
The case reached this point after the court previously ruled on summary judgment motions that eliminated claims against individual defendant John Giammatteo for discrimination and harassment. The court also determined that Richard Lynch "was the sole decisionmaker in terminating Plaintiff's employment" and rejected a "cat's paw" theory of liability that could have held Giammatteo responsible for influencing the termination decision.
Judge Kim sharply questioned why Giammatteo remains as a defendant at all, writing that "given the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motion dismissing the claims against him based on discrimination and harassment, he is obviously no longer a defendant for those claims." The judge noted there appears to be "no basis for liability against him as a defendant for any of the remaining retaliation claims" and directed the parties to address this issue at the pretrial conference.
The court also addressed damages limitations, ruling that while Sandhu and her medical professionals "may not be able to parse out exactly the emotional distress caused by the termination of Plaintiff's employment or caused by the stress of litigation," damages "will be limited to post-termination emotional distress." This ruling suggests Sandhu cannot recover for emotional distress she may have suffered during her employment before the alleged retaliation.
Judge Kim set an ambitious trial schedule with each side receiving 12 hours to present their case, plus one hour for opening statements and 90 minutes for closing arguments. The court will also conduct jury selection using a detailed questionnaire that includes pointed questions about the #MeToo movement, workplace discrimination, and whether potential jurors believe "the tech industry promotes a workplace culture where women are discriminated against or harassed on a routine basis."
The case represents a significantly pared-down version of what appears to have been broader discrimination claims against BlackBerry, with the court's recent rulings limiting Sandhu to proving that the company retaliated against her for raising good-faith complaints about workplace discrimination or harassment.