The bitter legal fight between Deel and Rippling just took another sharp turn.
Deel is now asking an Irish court to force Rippling to reveal full, unredacted versions of two agreements involving Keith O’Brien—the former Rippling employee who admitted in court to spying for Deel. O’Brien’s explosive affidavit, made public by Rippling, shocked many and added a dramatic twist to the ongoing lawsuit.
But Deel isn’t backing down. It says something doesn’t add up.
In newly filed documents, Deel points to an affidavit from Vanessa Wu, Rippling’s former general counsel. According to Wu’s testimony, Rippling paid O’Brien a termination fee in exchange for his agreement not to sue. Deel says this deal was followed by a second one, where Rippling agreed to cover O’Brien’s legal and out-of-pocket costs for cooperating in the case.
That, Deel argues, is highly unusual.
Why would a company pay someone they fired for cause? Deel claims this raises serious ethical concerns—and now wants the full agreements released.
The back-and-forth started in March, when Rippling sued Deel. The allegations included trade secret theft, unfair competition, and tortious interference. Deel quickly countersued, asking the court to throw out the case on jurisdictional grounds. It also accused Rippling of shady tactics, including attempts to spy on Deel.
In letters filed this week, Deel is doubling down. The company says the court—and the public—deserve to see what was really promised to O’Brien after his termination. It’s also highlighting how odd it is for a fired employee to return as a paid witness.
Rippling has yet to publicly respond to this latest demand.
For now, both sides are sticking to their stories. Each claims to be the real victim. But if the court agrees to unseal more of O’Brien’s testimony and the disputed contracts, we could soon get an even closer look at the behind-the-scenes moves driving this HR tech war.
