Jill Ellis, president of the San Diego Wave FC, claims a “disgruntled past staff” of the club insulted her on X and Instagram earlier this month by labeling her as fostering an abusive job setting and then using “fake emails” to refute that claim.
Ellis is suing past Wave film and creative director Brittany Alvarado on Monday in San Diego Superior Court for libel and intentional meddling with her contract with her lawyer, Ryan Stonerock of Harder Stonerock.
The problem details how Ellis ‘ allegedly fosters an abusive work was the subject of Alvarado’s social media posts. Ellis, who coached the U. S. Women’s National Team to back-to-back FIFA World Cup Championships in 2015 and 2019, was plainly attacked in Alvarado’s messages. Among the complaints Alvarado leveled:

The cure we received from team leader Jill Ellis has been nothing short of life-altering and devastating to our emotional wellbeing, in my opinion and that of my former coworkers. She has sacrificed numerous lives to advance her selfish specific goals, creating an environment where her subordinates can tolerate abusive behavior.
” To ultimately protect the team and people they have neglected and ignored for far too long, the NWSL must immediately eliminate Jill Ellis from both the San Diego Wave and the club.”
Additionally, the group has not fully complied with the tips from the 2022 NWSLPA Joint Investigation and the Sally Yates Report. The dangerous false impression that the NWSL has correctly addressed the widespread issue of abusive leadership is further strengthened by day-by-day inaction. Gill Ellis has been given an excuse for far too long, and she has no position in this sport.
Ellis even contends that Alvarado “is concerned for” and participated in the development of “fake letters” and fake texts. In Alvarado’s social media posts, she relies on screenshots of messages that appear to be coming from a Wave executive’s Gmail account.
One email, allegedly sent to NWSL commissioner Jessica Berman, falsely said Freud was resigning because she” no longer ha]d ] the patience for the stupidity of this league, the employees, and most, Jill Ellis”. Another suggested that a Wave individual might have been fired for racial or ethnic reasons.
Ellis cites Alvarado’s redaction of the Hotmail address, supposedly to stop users from verifying the messages and assuming they came from a job email address. Additionally, Ellis makes reference to the alleged fabrication of another false accusations by using a heater phone.
Ellis points out that the alleged connection between the Sally Yates 2022 exploration into alleged abuse involving NWSL coaches and players has some historical and scientific issues. Ellis was not a member of the NWSL at the time of the investigation or the allegations of abuse, and Wave FC, which opened its doors in 2022, did n’t begin until after the events that were investigated by the investigation.

Ellis even mentions Alvarado in a complaint about her Wave FC employment in February. Also, Alvarado requested a office accommodation that month in order to operate remotely for six weeks. According to the complaint, Alvarado was given a leave of absence because the team decided she was n’t qualified for a remote-based place.
No violations of any laws or NWSL policies were discovered by the team or Ellis after the organization concluded its investigation into Alvarado’s issue in April. Alvarado resigned from her job in June after the club, according to the complaint, offered her “privacy screens and noise cancelling headphones” but could n’t offer her a private office.
The complaint says Alvarado requested to operate in a “private, peaceful” building, but Wave FC found that not possible because some of Alvarado’s work jobs “would need to be performed in quiet, public places, including Snapdragon Stadium and the venues of another NWSL groups”.
In terms of reported injuries, Ellis contends her status has been seriously maligned—and with visible effects. For example, Ellis claims she was unable to provide the keynote address at an occasion this fall due to her declining relationship with a long-term partner. A school that was set to give Ellis an honorary diploma reneged after Alvarado’s claims.
It’s crucial to remember that a problem is not always correct and that it may not always provide a complete picture. Alvarado will have the chance to answer the issue, counter the claims and purported statistics and find the prosecution’s departure.
Hope Alvarado to demand that her social media statements are not disparaging because, she’ll probably argue, they are statements of viewpoint. Declarations that refute a truth or a place that can be assessed honestly are what constitute defamation. For example, a false accusation that someone robbed a bank is alleging what is presented as a fact—the person robbed a bank—that can be measured ( the robbery either happened or did n’t happen ) and is certainly harmful to the accused’s reputation. In comparison, statements of mind, such as claiming that another individual is mean or unpleasant, is arbitrary and outspoken criticism and no defamation.
In some settings, an objective-sounding assertion may still fall short of slander. As Sportico has detailed, Brett Favre has thus far come up short in his defamation lawsuit against Shannon Sharpe, who told his sports talk show audience that” ]Favre ] stole money from people that really needed that money”, because, as U. S. District Judge Keith Starrett explained, the context in which Sharpe made the remark ( a sports talk show ) is protected by First Amendment’s free speech. Sharpe, Starrett observed, engaged in “rhetorical hyperbole” and “loose, figurative language” in relation to a matter of public concern ( i. e., the Mississippi welfare fraud scandal connected to Favre ).
Some of Alvarado’s disparaging remarks about Ellis appear to be fact-sounding, distinct, and tangible, which poses a challenge for her in making this kind of protection. Notice that Ellis is accused of “abusive behaviors”, inflicting therapy that has caused “life-altering and damaging” harm to mental health and having” compromised many life”. The inaccurate relationship of Ellis to the Yates report is also raised, and her removal as president is also portrayed as essential to protecting Wave employees from harm.
Alvarado’s statement context is also crucial. Her social media posts come off as serious accusations, and she is not a sports talk show host. They were not raised in a formal setting like a sports talk show.
On the other hand, some of Alvarado’s statements appear more in line with opinion, such as when she claims Ellis has pursued a “narcissistic personal agenda”. As a general rule, Ellis may also be regarded as a public figure, which means she must demonstrate actual malice. Alvarado made false and hurtful statements while knowing that they were false or that they were being treated with careless disregard for whether they were true or false. Given how clearly Alvarado’s claims relate to her time at the Wave, Ellis would likely argue that this requirement is easily met.
Should Ellis v. Alvarado advance, there would be some risk for Ellis.
Ellis would have to provide sworn testimony on sensitive workplace issues. Ellis might have to acknowledge that she was tough at times, even in ways that might not have been well known in a public setting.
Ellis would have to respond to criticisms of her leadership that might be supported. Bernadette O’Donnell, a former Wave senior communications manager, claimed she quit because the workplace was unhealthy. Alex Morgan, a former Wave FC employee, also expressed disappointment that she had been informed of the allegations.