An Israeli-born Intel executive has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for reporting his supervisor’s pro-Hamas social media activity. The plaintiff, who was terminated in April, claims that his boss, Alaa Badr, an Intel vice president based in Seattle, engaged in alarming online behavior by endorsing violence against Israelis. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, includes evidence of Badr’s “horrific and troubling” posts on X (formerly Twitter), which are said to celebrate the deaths of Israelis and the destruction caused by Hamas.
The lawsuit details that Badr liked several posts depicting violence by Hamas, including illustrations of militants attacking Israeli soldiers and posts praising the burning of buildings with soldiers inside. One December post reportedly praised the bombing of a building where Israeli soldiers were present, using inflammatory language. The plaintiff, an Israeli Defense Force veteran now residing in New York City, alleges that he nearly lost his entire family to a Hamas missile strike earlier this year. He had to evacuate his home due to the attack.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff began working under Alaa Badr in late January and promptly reported the concerning social media activity through an intermediary to Intel’s human resources department. He later addressed the issue directly with HR in February. Despite his concerns, the lawsuit claims that the company took no action until Badr’s account was deactivated in March. The plaintiff was subsequently dismissed in early April. Following his termination, his pay was reduced, and his retention bonus was canceled, the suit alleges.
Intel has declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but has stated its commitment to diversity and inclusion, asserting that it does not tolerate hate speech. The plaintiff’s attorney, Douglas Wigdor, has criticized Intel for allegedly condoning antisemitism and retaliating against a former IDF member who raised concerns about such behavior. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and highlights the emotional and professional impact on the plaintiff, who felt targeted and betrayed for speaking out against his supervisor’s extremist views.
This legal action underscores the tension between corporate policies on hate speech and the personal consequences faced by individuals who challenge such behavior within their organizations.
