ASPCA Sued by Former Executive for Anti-Whistleblower Retaliation

The ASPCA and two of its top executives, including CEO Matt Bershadker, are facing a new bombshell lawsuit that alleges major problems at America’s largest animal charity.

The suit was filed May 15 by Gordon Lavalette, who was the ASPCA’s Chief Financial Officer until May 12–and is barking mad about being fired, according to the complaint. Lavalette claims his termination was in retaliation for raising several issues internally regarding mismanagement of donor money and safety risks to animals.

Here’s the gist: Lavalette, who previously worked for the New Jersey Devils and New Jersey Nets franchises, became CFO of the ASPCA in March 2021. Lavalette alleges he complained internally about several issues that concerned him, including the awarding of “no bid” contracts and an ASPCA center with black mold issues.

Lavalette says he was fired in retaliation for raising these issues. Adding insult to injury, Lavalette says he was axed while on vacation for his daughter’s wedding.

Below are excerpts of Lavalette’s claims. Read the whole complaint here.

The ASPCA issued a statement saying, “our Board of Directors took these matters seriously when they were first raised internally and engaged independent outside counsel to review them. After thorough investigation both the board and executive leadership remain unanimously confident that our policies and practices are appropriate, lawful, and consistent with our mission to protect animals.”

Lavalette Allegations

On p. 5, the lawsuit alleges:

Beginning in 2024, Plaintiff repeatedly objected to actions he reasonably believed amounted to Defendants’ reckless squandering of donor-contributed funds by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contracts with consultants and fundraising agencies for media buys, Human Resource vendor agreements, and other business agreements without conducting any competitive bidding or issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) as required by state law.

On p. 6 and 7, the lawsuit alleges:

Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants’ failure to comply with the law, as well as their own written rules governing expenditures of donated funds was knowing and deliberate. Yet Defendants led donors to believe that the ASPCA did comply with the law as well as Defendants’ published requirement of competitive bidding.

Plaintiff reasonably believed that such intentionally misleading conduct, which induced donors to contribute funds to the ASPCA, amounted to common law fraud upon the donors.

On p. 7, the lawsuit alleges:

Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants abandonment of competitive bidding led to Defendants’ annual squandering of tens of millions of dollars. […]

“Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants Bershadker and Bucci, aided and abetted by certain other high-level executives, including but not limited to Senior Vice President Todd Hendricks and Chief Legal Officer Beverly Jones, preferred to violate the law as well as overspend millions of dollars with friendly vendors than to competitively bid those contracts and use the savings to help animals.

On p. 8 and 9, the lawsuit alleges:

Since the plaintiff began employment at the ASPCA, Bershadker, SVP Hendricks and Chief Legal Officer Jones excluded the ASPCA Finance team from reviewing fundraising agreements, despite the ASPCA’s explicit policy requiring that the Finance team review all agreements over a certain threshold.

Moreover, Bershadker and Hendricks directed Plaintiff Lavalette and his staff to stay out of the fundraising area and prohibited them from discussing fundraising matters with the Board. Only after Plaintiff raised the Board these issues, which he reasonably believed violated the laws as well as his ethical duties as CFO, was Plaintiff Lavalette allowed to see some of the fundraising agreements, which led to his discovery that hundreds of millions of dollars in vendor contracts had been awarded without the required competitive bidding.

On p. 14 and 15, the lawsuit alleges:

As CFO, responsible for abiding by laws relating to financial and fiduciary obligations of non-profits, and the Code of Ethics for CFOs, Plaintiff objected to: (a) wasting of millions of dollars in donor funds due to violations of the ASPCA’s own contract review policies; (b) CEO Matt Bershadker’s violation of the ASPCA’s CEO expense policy, whereby Bershadker utilized “black car” limousine services outside of the limited uses allowed under the policy, and the subsequent attempt by Defendant Bershadker and Ms. Jones to amend the CEO expense policy to allow Bershadker to use more expensive hotels, more expensive airfare, and more liberal use of “black car” limousine service without the proper approval of the ASPCA Board.

Animal Health and Safety

On p. 12 and 13, the lawsuit alleges:

Plaintiff objected to serious and dangerous violations of law involving the transport of animals. Department of Transportation (DOT) laws and regulations require certain ASPCA vehicles to have Electronic Logging Devices (ELD) for drivers to record hours of service. These laws and regulations are in place to ensure drivers do not exceed the maximum number of driving hours for safety purposes. Plaintiff discovered that during a field response operation in New Mexico in July 2024, ASPCA drivers disconnected the ELD’s and exceeded the maximum number of hours allowed per DOT regulations.

In his September 16, 2024 email, Plaintiff objected to this practice, which he reasonably believed violated various laws and regulations, as well as basic safety precautions for ASPCA’s drivers, passengers, animals being transported, and other people traveling on the roadways.

Prior to his September 16, 2024 email, Plaintiff had suggested additional safety measures, including suggesting that two persons be in a vehicle when transporting animals in order to alternate driving to comply with the law, as well as to monitor the animals being transported to ensure that they did not over-heat.

On p. 13, the lawsuit alleges:

Plaintiff also objected to and raised safety concerns about ASPCA’s field response employees’ deploying new equipment without proper road testing, as required by various laws and regulations. In one example, a new ASPCA trailer was deployed without proper road testing and the brakes failed, with the driver narrowly escaping a catastrophic accident. 

These violations of safety laws were concerning to Plaintiff, and he requested that the practice be stopped and new training be implemented, particularly in light of the ASPCA’s history of safety lapses that resulted in the loss of life of animals in the ASPCA’s care. Plaintiff was aware of a horrific incident in May 2019, where a lapse in safety protocols resulted in 26 dogs and puppies dying of heatstroke while in the ASPCA’s care.

On p. 25, 26, and 27, the lawsuit alleges:

For example, in October 2024, Defendant Bershadker falsely criticized Lavalette for acting too quickly and not properly communicating with staff regarding his efforts in finding an alternative property for an ASPCA facility that had a faulty generator, black mold issues, a leaky roof with asbestos and a failing heating system (“91st Street Facility”).

These serious issues were causing very difficult conditions for ASPCA staff and the animals in their care and Lavalette was concerned that one or more of these systems would fail and cause further distress for the animals and staff.

Plaintiff Lavalette asked his Real Estate Vice President, David Jang, to find an alternative, interim facility that was safe. Mr. Jang quickly identified a suitable alternative space nearby.

During a call on November 1, 2024, Defendant Bershadker falsely accused Lavalette of ‘wasting a lot of time and energy’ looking for the new space when it was unlikely that the ASPCA would move to the alternative facility. Defendant Bershadker also criticized Lavalette for not involving more of the programmatic staff. […]

Plaintiff Lavalette reminded Defendant Bershadker that he had informed Bert Troughton on this matter from the start and was disturbed by Bershadker’s reluctance to support a safer environment, despite the cost it might entail, as the ASPCA had over $500 million in cash and investments not currently deployed and could easily afford to remove the risk altogether.