Ethereum Foundation, Buterin Face 11-Claim Employee Suit

A lawsuit against the Ethereum Foundation and board member Vitalik Buterin brings 11 claims arising from the April 6 dismissal of employee Fulton. The complaint alleges disability discrimination, retaliation, interference with medical-leave rights and wrongful termination under federal and Colorado law, plus intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The filing says the dispute centers on the Mandate, an organizational document the foundation’s board distributed to employees on Feb. 25. It contained a provision called the “Source Seppuku License,” whose pledge required contributors to “take their own lives with a sword if they failed to uphold its terms.”

The provision drew widespread internal opposition, and 79 staff members voted to remove it. Buterin, who sits on the foundation’s board, later told employees that significant changes were being considered in response to their concerns.

Those changes did not remove the disputed wording from the final Mandate, published March 13. The complaint says the final document retained it in a stylized illustration featuring cartoon characters. The foundation also recorded the Mandate on the Ethereum blockchain, according to the pleading.

That chronology links the policy dispute to the alleged retaliation: staff voted against the provision, the final document retained it, and the protest letter preceded both dismissals. The filing places the Mandate at the center of the employment conflict, not merely an internal communications debate.

The case puts the foundation’s governance and personnel processes at issue: a board-issued mandate, employee dissent, medical-leave handling and a Singapore arbitration term.

How did employees challenge the Mandate?

Fulton and Trent Van Epps organized a protest letter signed by 53 foundation employees. The letter opposed a requirement that workers personally endorse the Mandate or face termination. Management ultimately allowed dissenting employees to keep their jobs.

The complaint alleges that the foundation then selectively targeted the two organizers and fired them on April 6. It attributes the dismissals to their organizing role and says management gave Fulton no specific explanation.

What does the complaint say about Fulton’s medical leave?

Fulton alleges that the foundation dismissed her less than two weeks after she disclosed her cancer diagnosis. The complaint cites her strong performance record and absence of prior disciplinary action. It says management did not address her request for employment protection or medical leave before ending her employment without a specific explanation.

Facing an imminent loss of health insurance, Fulton signed a separation agreement that waived legal claims. She now challenges the agreement’s enforceability, including a provision requiring arbitration in Singapore. The suit therefore contests both the dismissal and the enforceability of the separation she signed while facing the loss of health insurance.

What relief does the lawsuit seek?

• Lost wages and back pay, plus compensatory and punitive damages.
• Legal fees.
• Invalidation of the separation agreement, including its requirement for arbitration in Singapore.

The filing gives no total dollar figure for the requested relief.

What do the recorded remarks show about Buterin?

The suit cites a recorded conversation in which Buterin allegedly questioned whether rewarding employees for challenging management would encourage further dissent. Fulton’s attorneys argue that the remarks support the retaliatory-dismissal claims. The pleading stops short of establishing that Buterin personally ordered Fulton’s termination.

What remains unresolved?

Fulton filed a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 2 and received a notice of right to sue on Sept. 23. She also filed a separate unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, which remained pending when the lawsuit was filed.

The EEOC and NLRB filings were separate from the lawsuit. The still-pending NLRB charge provides the next procedural milestone, while the complaint leaves the total damages and trial timing unspecified.