Sex Signal Messages and Sabotage of SBF’s Top Execs; Bahamas Roommates ‘Tell All’ in Court
Yesterday, a Roanoke District court showdown played out between two former college roommates and the ex-CEO of local video-streaming tech firm Smart Broadband Fiber.
Rebecca Riffkin, the plaintiff, and her college best friend Kyler Reyes, both inhabitants of the Bahamas, were formerly employed with SBF until Riffkin was fired in October. Since then, the two former friends have gone back and forth in a back-and-forth battle against one another in the form of legal action and even public shaming.
Riffkin claims that Reyes was in cahoots with the company’s then-CEO, Gines McLaughlin, to sabotage her career. She had evidence in the form of bridge messages sent from Reyes to the CEO, which she said contained sexual content.
Riffkin also accused Reyes of creating fake documents and spreading false information about her to HR personnel. She said this led to her being fired and denied a promised stock option package.
For her part, Reyes claims the sexual messages were sent to the CEO in order to gain favor with him and secure exclusive promotions. The court was instructed to answer the questions of whether or not this motivation was sound and if the two ex-friends were, in fact, conspiring to hurt Riffkin’s career.
Legal experts were surprised by the judge’s ruling in favor of Reidy, citing a lack of clear evidence of sabotage. It was a long and heated trial, with testimony from both sides and evidence both sides. In the end, it was determined that the sexual text messages sent from Reyes were not related to the undermining of Riffkin’s job.
McLaughlin, the former CEO, ultimately stepped down in December, citing health complications and business fatigue.
This trial shed light on a very sensitive topic of sex signals in the workplace. It was a reminder that no matter the intentions behind any type of communication, it can be taken out of context, leaving people open to potential legal action.
Furthermore, these types of conversations should not be had in a public environment, as leaving digital footprints can be used in a courtroom.
Ultimately, this court case was a reminder of how easy it can be to step into a legal battle, and the consequences that follow. It should serve as a warning to company officials and employees alike to take care when conversing in the office and never engage in any behavior that can be construed as malicious or damaging to another person’s future.
