In a legal saga that has spanned over six years, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg finds himself in a Manhattan court seeking to block a deposition in a lawsuit brought by former Massachusetts campaign workers. The dispute centers around alleged promises made during his 2026 presidential campaign.
Bloomberg, one of the world’s wealthiest individuals, entered the presidential race in November 2019 and spent nearly $900 million before dropping out on March 4, 2026. He later endorsed Joe Biden and contributed millions to aid in defeating then-President Donald Trump.
The Legal Dispute Unfolds
On July 16 Bloomberg filed papers in the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, aiming to prevent a July 22 deposition sought by former Massachusetts campaign workers. These workers are suing his campaign, alleging that Bloomberg made guarantees that they would remain employed through the general election even if he did not secure the Democratic nomination.
Bloomberg’s attorneys have labeled the proposed deposition an improper “fishing expedition”. They argue that the workers should first question campaign employees and a representative of Mike Bloomberg 2026 Inc. before seeking testimony from Bloomberg himself. According to Bloomberg’s filing, no depositions have yet been taken in the underlying Massachusetts case.
The Alleged Phone Call
At the heart of the dispute is a phone call that Bloomberg allegedly joined with Massachusetts campaign workers roughly two weeks before the 2026 Super Tuesday primaries. Bloomberg has denied making any employment promise during that call in a sworn statement submitted with his New York petition.
“I made no promise to Massachusetts staff that they would remain employed for any specific duration on a phone call with Massachusetts staff, as I understand has been alleged,” Bloomberg stated in the affirmation, which he signed under penalty of perjury.
The Massachusetts Lawsuit
The subpoena originates from Doty v. Mike Bloomberg 2026 Inc. a proposed class-action lawsuit brought in Middlesex Superior Court by former campaign workers based in Massachusetts. The workers allege that Bloomberg’s campaign recruited staff by promising wages and benefits through, regardless of whether he became the Democratic nominee. About 60 people worked for the campaign in Massachusetts, according to their complaint.
The workers acknowledge signing paperwork that identified them as at-will employees who could be terminated at any time. However, they allege that the campaign continued making oral employment guarantees after the paperwork was signed. Their complaint states that campaign headquarters provided an interview script instructing staff to tell prospective hires that employment was guaranteed “through with Team Bloomberg”.
Bloomberg ended his campaign the day after Super Tuesday in 2026; he won only American Samoa. Later, he backed then-former Vice President Biden after concluding that “a viable path to the nomination no longer exists.” Roughly two weeks later, staffers were informed they would be laid off and that they would receive their final paychecks on March 31 according to the complaint.
The Legal Landscape
The layoffs quickly triggered litigation beyond Massachusetts. Within days, former Bloomberg staffers filed two proposed class actions in federal court in Manhattan – one over the alleged employment promise and another over unpaid overtime.
Attorneys for Bloomberg and for the former campaign workers seeking his deposition this month did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
The Trial and Its Aftermath
The most detailed account of the disputed phone call comes from a trial in an earlier Massachusetts lawsuit brought by four former Bloomberg campaign workers, including Nygel O’Bannon. Bloomberg had already been dismissed from the case, leaving O’Bannon to pursue his claim against the campaign.
At the trial, a witness testified that Bloomberg joined a conference call with Massachusetts staffers roughly two weeks before Super Tuesday. The witness said journalist Sam Donaldson told the workers that Bloomberg had guaranteed their jobs through November and that Oscar-winning actor Michael Douglas vouched for Bloomberg’s trustworthiness. Bloomberg then joined the call and repeated the employment assurance, according to the testimony.
“He reiterated what had been said numerous times by supervisors, that you have a job through November, even if I’m not elected the Democratic nominee, you’ll still be working,” the witness testified. The witness said Bloomberg tied the commitment to defeating Trump in the November election.
Bloomberg denies making the promise attributed to him. Jurors voted 13-1 that O’Bannon’s written employment agreement with the campaign had been validly changed by an oral promise and that the campaign breached the modified agreement. They awarded him $56,000 in damages.
The verdict was against the campaign, not Bloomberg personally. The verdict form did not identify who made the oral promise or ask whether Bloomberg personally made the statement attributed to him on the call.
Superior Court Judge John C. Fraser later refused to overturn the verdict or order a new trial, finding “ample evidence” from which jurors could conclude that O’Bannon’s contract had been orally modified to guarantee employment through. Fraser reduced the damages to account for unemployment benefits O’Bannon received after he was laid off.
An amended judgment entered in November set the damages at $27,762 and the total award, including interest and costs, at $53,750.20. Both sides appealed parts of the case: The campaign is challenging the verdict and related rulings, while the former workers are contesting Bloomberg’s dismissal, the denial of class certification, and the reduction of O’Bannon’s award.
The subpoena now being fought in Manhattan comes from a different lawsuit. In Doty another group of former campaign workers also sued Bloomberg personally. But Superior Court Judge Lynn C. Rooney dismissed him from the case in March, ruling that Massachusetts courts lacked authority over the New York resident.
Rooney acknowledged the workers’ evidence that Bloomberg participated in one phone call with Massachusetts campaign staff. But she found the call insufficient to make him defend the case there, saying she was relying “essentially” on the reasoning in Bloomberg’s legal brief. Her ruling did not decide whether he made the alleged promise.
Rooney also threw out the workers’ claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, ruling that pay sought for work they never performed did not count as earned wages. Their breach-of-contract claim against the campaign remains pending.
Then, last month, a federal judge went the other way. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris ruled on June 18 that former Massachusetts campaign worker Alina Sipp-Alpers could pursue a breach-of-contract claim against Bloomberg personally as well as against the campaign. Saris dismissed claims brought by named workers from other states because their cases lacked a sufficient connection to Massachusetts.
Saris cited the O’Bannon trial testimony and found the alleged call sufficient, at that early stage of the case, to require Bloomberg to defend Sipp-Alpers’ claim in Massachusetts. She expressly disagreed with Rooney’s decision in Doty, writing that its conclusion about the call “lacked any legal explanation.”
The federal judge also found that Sipp-Alpers had plausibly alleged that the call created a separate oral contract with Bloomberg, even though he was not a party to her written employment agreement with the campaign.
Saris did not find that Bloomberg made or broke the alleged promise. She ruled only that Sipp-Alpers had presented enough at this early stage for her claim to move forward.
Bloomberg’s Manhattan filing does not mention Saris’ ruling. It argues that his testimony is unnecessary in Doty because he is no longer a defendant and the only surviving claim is against his campaign committee.
His lawyers also say the workers have not yet questioned a campaign representative or the officials they accuse of communicating the employment guarantee, although the parties have exchanged written questions and document requests.
According to the New York filing, the workers asked in late May whether Bloomberg would testify voluntarily. His attorneys objected but agreed to accept a subpoena, which was emailed on June 18 — the same day Saris issued her federal ruling. The filing does not indicate whether the timing was connected.
