A co-founder of investment management firm Bramshill Investments has filed a lawsuit after being dismissed for allegedly violating the company’s return-to-office policy, arguing the rule was never intended to apply to him as a co-owner of the business.
William Nieporte, 57, who co-founded Bramshill in 2012 with longtime friends Art DeGaetano and Stephen Selver, claims he was unfairly removed from the firm in 2022 through what he describes as a coordinated effort to force him out and seize his ownership stake.
According to court filings, the company introduced a policy requiring employees to work from one of its offices in New York, Florida, or California five days a week. While the policy applied to “at-will” employees, Nieporte maintains he was not subject to the rule because he was a founding partner and shareholder.
His lawsuit alleges that the return-to-office policy was used as a pretext for his dismissal, triggering a clause in the company’s operating agreement that required him to sell his 12 percent ownership stake after being terminated for cause.
Nieporte also claims that an earlier dispute related to his divorce was used by the other co-founders to reduce his voting rights and weaken his position within the company before his eventual dismissal.
The lawsuit further accuses human resources provider ADP of assisting in the termination process by issuing an official dismissal notice, which Nieporte argues gave legitimacy to what he describes as an unlawful removal.
Following his termination, Nieporte alleges he stopped receiving his share of the company’s profits and lost the value of his ownership interest. He is seeking at least $30 million in damages, restoration of his equity stake, and reinstatement as the firm’s Chief Compliance Officer.
Bramshill Investments has denied the allegations, describing the lawsuit as baseless and maintaining that Nieporte was dismissed for failing to perform his duties, including complying with the company’s workplace policy. ADP has also denied wrongdoing, stating that its system simply processes employment decisions made by client companies and that it intends to defend itself in court.
The case remains before the courts, and no final judgment has been reached.
