Holding Samsung's Highest Levels Accountable: ILG Legal Adds Parent Companies to Discrimination Lawsuit

Following the Evidence to the Top

From the beginning, this case has been about more than the wrongful termination of one employee. It’s about a corporate culture that, as we allege in our complaint, is rife with discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. As we dug into the evidence, a clear picture emerged: key decisions and harmful policies were not being made by the U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Research America (“SRA”), alone. They were flowing down from the highest levels of Samsung’s global enterprise.

Our motion to the court to amend the complaint laid out the powerful evidence uncovered during discovery, arguing that the parent companies are liable because they operate as a single “integrated enterprise” and act as “joint employers” with SRA. Some of the key allegations detailed in our filings include:

• Direct Control from Headquarters: Samsung’s Korean HQ exercises tight control over its U.S. subsidiaries by implanting “Dispatchers” or “Expatriates” into every key department. These individuals act as overseers, with one witness stating employees were expected to behave as if they were seeing “a police officer.”
• Discriminatory Practices from the Top: Our complaint details allegations that the prejudice against non-Korean and “dark-skinned” employees originates from the company’s HQ. In one instance, a manager allegedly instructed that “dark-skinned” employees should wait outside while executives from HQ visited.
• A Calculated Playbook for Terminations: We’ve alleged that Samsung’s HR coached managers to terminate employees using false reasons, such as “role elimination,” to hide unlawful motives. Our client, Mr. Mo, was terminated for this exact pretextual reason just months after he reported discrimination.

A Hard-Fought Battle to Amend

Adding these corporate giants to the lawsuit was a legal battle in itself. When we first presented the evidence to SRA and requested their agreement to amend the complaint in late 2024, they refused.

We were left with no choice but to file a formal motion asking the court for permission to proceed. Even as the hearing approached in early June 2024, SRA continued to resist, asking for yet another delay.

However, the strength of the evidence presented in our motion was undeniable. The day before their opposition brief was due, SRA conceded and stipulated to allow us to file the First Amended Complaint. This was a significant victory, clearing the path for us to hold the entire integrated “Samsung” enterprise responsible. At ILG Legal Office, we are committed to peeling back the layers of corporate structure to expose the truth and fight for our clients. This latest development is a crucial step toward achieving justice for Mr. Mo. We will continue to fight to ensure that no corporation, no matter how large or powerful, is above the law.