Call Us Now


Financial Trader Sues Madison Square Gardens after Ejection for Heckling Costs His Job

Posted On: January, 24 2015

Several media outlets have recently run stories¹ about former ING Financial Services trader Anthony Rotondi, who was ejected from a New York Knicks game at Madison Square Gardens (MSG) on January 7, 2014.

The allegations are that he was attending the game with his supervisor and two clients, using his employer’s season tickets. During the fourth quarter, Mr. Rotondi loudly heckled All-Star power forward Carmelo Anthony, allegedly shouting, “Carmelo, you stink!” If true, this would be one of the more banal heckles ever directed at Mr. Anthony. A trier of fact may be able to take notice of the fact that MSG has often hosted some of the more accomplished hecklers in professional sports, including the critically acclaimed director Spike Lee.

 Apparently, Mr. Rotondi was upset that the Knicks had blown a 14 point fourth-quarter lead against the struggling Detroit Pistons (although the Knicks would rally in the final minutes and pull out a narrow victory).

What happened next is in dispute, however at some point Mr. Rotondi was removed from MSG, and charged with criminal offences including tampering with a sports contest and criminal trespass.

The lawsuit alleges that MSG was not content to simply eject Mr. Rotondi from the arena, but also called his employer and alleged that Mr. Rotondi had used profane and vulgar language, had been abusive with security, and refused to produce his ticket when asked.

This unusual situation raises some interesting legal issues. In particular, it may invoke the concept of liability for pure economic loss for negligent misstatement, first developed by the British House of Lords in the seminal 1964 case Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] AC 465.

Prior to Hedley Byrne, a plaintiff could not recover damages resulting from a negligent misstatement of facts made by a party to whom the plaintiff was not linked by contract. In Hedley Byrne, the Plaintiff corporation was an advertising agency who received a large order from a company called Easipower. Before accepting the order, Hedley Byrne asked the defendant corporation, Heller & Partners Ltd., about Easipower’s creditworthiness. Heller & Partners was in a position to know the correct answer as it was responsible for Easipower’s banking. Heller & Partners confirmed that Easipower was creditworthy, which turned out to be untrue as Easipower became insolvent shortly thereafter, leaving Hedley Byrne with a substantial unpaid bill. The House of Lords found that the relationship between Heller & Partners and Hedley Byrne was sufficiently close in the circumstances that Heller & Partners ought to have known that Hedley Byrne would rely on the information provided, and may suffer a financial loss if that information were inaccurate or misleading.

This principle is infrequently applied in employment law cases, but Mr. Rotondi’s claim may be one example where a claim for pure economic loss might be sustained against a third party. For example, it is at least debatable whether “Carmelo, you stink!” is profane or vulgar language. It’s not difficult to imagine a character on a prime time network sitcom making a similar statement.

If Madison Square Gardens represented to ING that Mr. Rotondi used profane and vulgar language, and if that representation was false, then Mr. Rotondi may advance the argument that MSG misled his employer and that the misleading facts presented to his employer directly resulted in the termination of his employment. Similarly, an argument could be made that if Mr. Rotondi was not in fact abusive with security, and if MSG made an untrue representation to his employer that he had been abusive, then ING might be responsible for his wage losses.

Similar types of liability for negligent misrepresentation can arise in the context of employee references, which is perhaps why many employers will refuse to provide a qualitative recommendation, and will instead simply provide a “confirmation of employment” letter. If a subsequent employer relied on a positive recommendation in hiring an employee, and if that positive reference were later discovered to be misleading, damages or losses suffered by the subsequent employer as a result of the employee’s incompetence could potentially be visited on the party who gave the recommendation.

The message here is that you should seek legal advice before making representations about a person to his or her employer or potential employer. It is possible for third parties to be held liable for employment law damages if their communications are misleading and result in someone losing his or her employment.;


Contact Us



  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by SB

    "I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    "Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Mark C.

    "Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    "Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Christian V.

    "Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by A Google User

    "I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!"
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Larry S.

    "Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family."