A King County-based software engineer’s employment lawsuit against HR tech firm Rippling is headed to arbitration after U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled on Sept. 5 that the claims must be resolved outside of court.
The lawsuit, originally filed by former engineering manager Fu Zhou in King County Superior Court, alleges that she was unlawfully fired after taking medical leave for IVF treatment and raising concerns about her compensation.
Zhou accuses the San Francisco-based HR tech company of discrimination, retaliation and violations of Washington labor laws, including the state’s Silenced No More Act.
She filed the complaint on March 21, 2025, but Rippling moved the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in April. According to the lawsuit, Zhou had no documented performance issues before taking unpaid disability leave in March 2022. She says she informed her manager, Adam Donovan, about her IVF treatments and submitted medical documentation. When she returned to work in June, she was immediately fired.
“Ms. Zhou’s unpaid disability leave concluded, and she returned to work on June 3, 2022,” the complaint states. “Upon returning, she was immediately terminated.”
The complaint highlights her recent assignment to a critical project just weeks before her leave, casting doubt, Zhou argues, on any claims of poor performance. It also alleges that Donovan admitted to HR there was no documented record of performance issues.
“HR responded by asking him whether he had documented performance issues with Ms. Zhou,” the complaint reads. “Mr. Donovan admitted that there was not a history of performance documentation, and he told HR that he would need to ‘retroactively’ document issues. He also told HR that he wanted to ‘move very quickly on this’ rather than follow his normal practice of allowing employees to address feedback.”
Donovan, an MIT graduate, is Rippling’s Head of Infrastructure. He previously co-founded and served as CTO of interactive financial data tools company Trefis, has advised Artisan Industries since 2008 and directed the BattleCode AI programming competition from 2006 to 2008.
Zhou also claims Donovan showed favoritism toward male subordinates with documented performance problems while holding her to a different standard. She also alleges that he openly expressed negative views about employees taking medical leave, referencing inappropriate comments he made about another female employee’s health condition in a team chat.
“In February 2022, Mr. Donovan alarmed Ms. Zhou by openly treating another female employee’s medical leave and disability accommodation as a negative factor in her employment,” the complaint reads.
“On a group chat, Mr. Donovan inappropriately discussed that employee’s health condition and medical leave, and he stated, ‘I would much rather her be on leave, or leave the company, than being nominally working but very unproductive and unpredictable.’ His comments indicate that Mr. Donovan has a bias against employees taking leave, and that he views an employee with medical disabilities as likely to be ‘unproductive and unpredictable.’”
The complaint further accuses Rippling of violating the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave Act by failing to inform Zhou of her eligibility for paid benefits during her leave, and of attempting to silence her through a “No Cooperation” clause in a proposed separation agreement. Zhou says this violates the Silenced No More Act by restricting former employees from discussing workplace misconduct.
“This ‘No Cooperation’ provision constitutes a significant restriction on an employee’s ability to speak about illegal workplace behavior,” the complaint reads. “When an employee is asserting claims against her employer, it is crucial that the claimant’s colleagues and former colleagues have the freedom to speak with the claimant (or the claimant’s attorney) about what they witnessed, what corroborating testimony they can provide, whether the employer has engaged in a pattern of illegal behavior, etc. The ‘No Cooperation’ provision in the separation agreement bars employees from providing that type of assistance.”
In addition to retaliation and gender bias claims, Zhou alleges pay discrimination. She says her inquiry about compensation parity with male colleagues in early 2022 was ignored and was a contributing factor in her termination.
“Zhou asked Mr. Donovan about her pay and the opportunity to be compensated more,” the complaint reads. “Mr. Donovan was not interested in addressing Ms. Zhou’s compensation inquiry. Ms. Zhou was concerned that she was not receiving equal pay compared to similarly situated male employees at Rippling.”
She also claims she lost a valuable stock grant estimated at $450,000 due to the firing. She is seeking damages for lost wages, stock, emotional distress and attorney’s fees.
Zhou is represented by King County-based attorneys David C. Martin and Lisa Burke of MBE Law Group PLLC.
The case adds to growing scrutiny of Rippling’s workplace practices.
In January 2024, an anonymous Glassdoor review from a self-identified former HR employee described a toxic work environment where dissent was punished and positive reviews were allegedly encouraged as PR.
“If you notice discrimination and call it out, you might get fired (believe me, I am not making this up),” the review states.
The company is also facing renewed controversy over CEO Parker Conrad’s regulatory history, an issue tied to insurance filings across multiple states, including discrepancies affecting Illinois, California and Tennessee.
Conrad, who previously led Zenefits, resigned in 2016 amid regulatory investigations revealing that unlicensed Zenefits employees were illegally selling insurance. He later surrendered his California insurance license, paid $66,000 in fines, and was fined $35,000 in Texas.
Despite this disciplinary history, Rippling answered “No” in 2017 and 2019 Illinois licensing forms when asked if any company leader had ever faced license suspension or revocation.
Meanwhile, a Tennessee filing from the same period acknowledged Conrad’s regulatory issues but labeled him a “non-controlling shareholder,” even though a simultaneous California application listed him as a “controlling person” with 60% ownership.
Rippling now also faces a lawsuit from competitor Deel, Inc., accusing the company and Conrad of misappropriating payroll and benefits funds from clients and employees. Deel’s suit claims Rippling is repeating past behavior, describing its alleged tactics as “cheating.”
