A former employee is suing Jim Onder of OnderLaw, accusing him of sexual harassment, racially offensive comments, and breaking the law to push forward the data center he wants to build in Ferguson. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, says she was fired after complaining about Onder’s actions to human resources and refusing to participate in his Ferguson campaign.
The suit was filed at 4:53 p.m. Thursday. On Friday, lawyers for Onder were at a hearing in St. Louis County Circuit Court, seeking to seal the case and keep it from public scrutiny.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
Subscribe to the St. Louis Daily newsletter for a smart, succinct guide to local news from award-winning journalists Sarah Fenske and Ryan Krull.
They were too late. The suit was circulating around town widely by late morning Friday, and the St. Louis Business Journal published a story detailing the allegations in the suit just before the hearing began.
In the suit, the woman, who was hired in 2025, says that Onder groped and touched her inappropriately on four different occasions—including once after she complained to the firm’s interim human resources officer.
That officer, Lisa Frederick, who was also OnderLaw’s chief operating officer, allegedly told Doe that she had “[s]een it many times with Jim and women, including those who work here.” She also told Doe that Frederick had previously “caught Mr. Onder having sex with a woman behind the bar at OnderLaw’s Lockwood office after a political event the firm had hosted that evening.”
After Doe complained, she said Onder’s treatment of her worsened, and she came to believe Frederick had told Onder about her complaint.
Doe alleges another OnderLaw employee was also fired after being harassed by Onder.
But Doe’s complaints are not just about sexual harassment. She also alleges that Onder ordered her “to run an online campaign to target Ferguson residents who opposed the data center and/or tax breaks for it.” She says that campaign was to include content dressed up to “look like legitimate news stories” that paint Ferguson as “overrun by crime and hopelessness.” In a meeting Doe attended, Onder allegedly “explained that he wanted to instill fear about safety in Ferguson through exaggerated, catastrophized stories, and position the data center as, in Mr. Onder’s words, ‘the only way out for these people.’”
After the Ferguson City Council initially rejected Onder’s request for tax breaks, two members changed their minds. The council ultimately approved a package of tax breaks for the data center in September.
The suit alleges that Onder made offensive remarks about the residents of Ferguson. “Mr. Onder openly mocked Black people in front of Ms. Doe, regularly adopting an exaggerated, stereotypical imitation of African-American Vernacular English to degrade Black people. During a meeting where Ms. Doe was discussing what graphics to use during a Ferguson town hall, he commented: ‘They [Black people] can’t read, so it doesn’t matter.’”
Doe also says Onder hired a director of special projects, Don Bertelsmann, who worked to push the data center forward. Doe says he failed to register with the state even though, Doe alleges, state law requires it. She says Onder told Bertelsmann to “manufacture comments about Ferguson from other email addresses and social media profiles, so the comments would appear to come from ordinary members of the public.”
For her part, Doe “refused to break the law,” the suit says. “She barred members of her team from taking part in the campaign. She reported this unlawful scheme to OnderLaw’s Chief Operating Officer.”
On August 13, Doe asked for paperwork to be put on leave because of the “physical and mental toll of the escalating pressure at work.”
Four days later, she was fired.
The attempt to seal Doe’s lawsuit got off to an unusual start Friday, with three reporters following two lawyers for OnderLaw through the courthouse as they sought an audience before a judge who could put the case under seal.
After retreating to the judge’s chambers, a hearing began on Friday afternoon. Jim Nowogrocki, appearing on behalf of OnderLaw, argued that filings for the case ought to be sealed because the lawsuit contains allegations concerning private personnel matters and potential trade secrets.
He noted that the plaintiff filed as Jane Doe without first seeking leave to do so. If the plaintiff is seeking privacy, OnderLaw should be allowed the same, Nowogrocki argued.
Judge John Lasater—in whose courtroom the matter wound up—noted that there is Missouri case law favoring cases playing out in public. He said that there is no compelling reason to seal the case other than potential embarrassment and harm to the business’s reputation. Therefore, it would remain public.
Discussion in the courtroom indicated there would be a future hearing on whether the plaintiff will be able to continue her suit pseudonymously.
Editor’s note: We updated this post after publication with information from the hearing.
