Allegations of retaliation following internal reports about IT governance risks and discriminatory practices have led to a lawsuit against a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company and several senior executives. The complaint was filed by Suacer Tejeda in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026, naming Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., Chief Operating Officer Mark Jacobson, Vice President of Human Resources Michelle Gottlieb, and Executive Director Erica Miu as defendants.
According to the filing, Tejeda was hired in January 2023 as an IT Operations Manager at Axsome Therapeutics and later promoted to Associate Director of IT Operations. His role involved improving the company’s digital infrastructure and implementing controls supporting auditability. During his tenure, Tejeda claims he raised concerns regarding what he believed were risky IT governance practices directed by his skip-level manager Erica Miu. These included alleged circumvention of change management controls on financial servers and evasion of cybersecurity logging—practices that Tejeda believed could undermine internal controls over financial reporting required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.
The complaint outlines that Tejeda also opposed what he described as race- and national origin-based discrimination targeting a Black subordinate of Nigerian descent within his department. He alleges that management sought to strip this subordinate of certain duties due to his accent being deemed “difficult,” which Tejeda refused to carry out. He further documents that these events were witnessed by colleagues who expressed concern over the conduct.
Following these disclosures, Tejeda asserts that Miu systematically reduced his managerial autonomy, interfered with his projects, and subjected him to what is described as a “protocol of withheld trust.” The work environment reportedly caused an exacerbation of a pre-existing medical condition for which Tejeda sought reasonable accommodation through an interactive process with human resources. According to the filing, Axsome failed to provide a written final determination regarding his request for accommodation and rescinded a previously promised promotion.
Tejeda states that after submitting a formal request to rescind his resignation—which he describes as compelled—and remain employed under accommodation terms, Axsome used his disclosed disability as justification for denying this request. This denial allegedly triggered the forfeiture of unvested equity grants valued at $880,000 at the time by COO Mark Jacobson. The complaint notes that prior promises made regarding promotions were not honored following these events.
The document provides detailed accounts from early operational successes—including technical migrations and cybersecurity improvements—to escalating conflicts over project control between Tejeda and Miu. It describes instances where projects were reassigned or timelines accelerated beyond feasibility according to external vendors’ assessments. It also recounts direct quotations from internal communications where management acknowledged difficulties with trust toward male staff members or expressed intent to “teach [Tejeda] a lesson” following protected disclosures.
Tejeda’s claims are brought under federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as state laws such as New York Labor Law § 740 (Whistleblower Law), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He alleges whistleblower retaliation; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in cooperative dialogue; discriminatory discharge based on disability; unlawful retaliation for opposing discrimination; creation of a hostile work environment based on gender; among other causes.
The plaintiff seeks multiple forms of relief: declaratory judgment recognizing violations under federal, state, or city law; permanent injunctions prohibiting further retaliatory or discriminatory practices; economic damages including back pay, front pay, lost benefits; specific damages representing forfeited equity grants; compensatory damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; interest on all amounts due; attorneys’ fees; and costs associated with bringing the action.
The case is identified as Case 1:26-cv-01953-UA in the Southern District of New York. Named attorneys or judges are not specified in the provided document.
Source: 126cv01953_Saucer_Marmolejos_v_Axsome_Therapeutics_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
