Swedish Institute v. Lincoln Accuses Ex-COO of Trade Secret Theft for Rival Campus
Post-Employment OneDrive Access Alleged for Over Three Months
The complaint alleges that Derrick Ruffin, former Chief Operating Officer of Swedish Institute Incorporated, engaged in "blatant, calculated, and deliberate theft of Swedish Institute’s confidential information and trade secrets" to help himself and Lincoln establish a new campus and compete with Swedish Institute (Compl. ¶¶1–2). The complaint states that Ruffin’s last known successful login to Swedish Institute’s systems occurred on June 25, 2026 (Compl. ¶7). On June 16, 2026, Ruffin forwarded proprietary documents to his personal email, including what the complaint describes as the “Marketing Bible,” which contains annual marketing plans, budgets, goals, and conversion rates (Compl. ¶45).
The complaint further alleges that Ruffin took a document titled “Nursing Leads with Emails,” which contained 4,890 curated potential student leads, along with student lists that included Social Security numbers, enrollment status, and account balances (Compl. ¶¶46–47). The complaint states that Ruffin had no legitimate reason to access these materials post-employment, alleging that his actions were intended to benefit his new employer, Lincoln Educational Services Corporation. The filing describes Ruffin’s conduct as "systematically misappropriating Swedish Institute’s most sensitive confidential information" and asserts that "no legitimate reason to access those confidential trade secrets other than to compete improperly" (Compl. ¶¶163, 52). Under the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement signed on January 16, 2025, Ruffin received a salary of $275,000 per year and was eligible for a potential loyalty bonus of $125,000, which the complaint asserts constituted adequate consideration for his contractual obligations (Compl. ¶116).
Alleged Solicitation of Key Admissions Team
The complaint alleges that Ruffin, who oversaw 10 admissions representatives and 8 financial aid representatives at Swedish Institute, targeted the top 50% of the school’s admissions team (Compl. ¶54). According to the filing, Ruffin successfully solicited at least four Swedish Institute employees to join Lincoln (Compl. ¶142). On March 12, 2026, Kia Jones confirmed job opening details with Ruffin via an attachment while both were still employed by Swedish Institute, asking, "This position correct?" (Compl. ¶66). The complaint alleges that Jones was terminated in June 2026 for shirking responsibilities following Ruffin’s solicitations (Compl. ¶67).
Ebony Williamson joined Swedish Institute in December 2021 as an Admissions Representative and was later promoted to Associate Director of Admissions (Compl. ¶57). Williamson resigned from Swedish Institute in July 2026, following what the complaint alleges was a solicitation by Ruffin (Compl. ¶58). Jennifer Smith, another employee whom the complaint alleges Ruffin solicited, also resigned from Swedish Institute in July 2026 (Compl. ¶¶60, 62). Anthony Jones, a third employee Ruffin allegedly targeted, resigned in June 2026 (Compl. ¶¶69, 71). The complaint notes that Ruffin also solicited two additional employees who chose to remain at Swedish Institute (Compl. ¶¶73–75). The complaint states that admissions representatives are responsible for converting potential student leads into enrolled students, a process that generates revenue for Swedish Institute, and that the departures caused monetary damages, including costs associated with retaining and replacing key personnel (Compl. ¶¶78–80). The filing asserts that Ruffin’s actions constituted a "serious attack" on Swedish Institute’s admissions operations, directly impacting its ability to maintain a stable workforce (Compl. ¶77).
Contractual Restrictions Alleged Violations and Consideration
The complaint alleges that Ruffin’s actions violated his Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective January 16, 2025, which included non-compete, non-solicit, and confidentiality clauses. The filing asserts multiple causes of action against Ruffin, including breach of contract for violating the non-compete, non-solicit, and confidentiality provisions (Compl. ¶¶[Counts III-V]). According to the filing, Ruffin’s agreement barred him from competing with Swedish Institute within a 50-mile radius of its Manhattan campus and prohibited him from soliciting Swedish Institute employees (Compl. ¶¶87, 118). The complaint alleges that Lincoln’s Hicksville and Paramus campuses fall within this restricted area (Compl. ¶122). The complaint further alleges that Ruffin’s acceptance of employment with Lincoln violates paragraph 6.2(a) of the Agreement, which explicitly prohibits such competition (Compl. ¶123).
The complaint states that Ruffin’s agreement defined “Protected Information” as "trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information," including documents, writings, memoranda, business plans, student enrollment records, employee performance data, program pricing, marketing strategies, admissions policies, and budget and strategy documents (Compl. ¶¶84–85, 95, 151–152). The filing alleges that Ruffin acknowledged these obligations, agreeing that "Protected Information constitutes trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information" and that "the Executive agrees to keep secret and to treat confidentially and not to... appropriate, divulge, disclose or otherwise disseminate to any other Person... any Protected Information" (Compl. ¶¶84–85). Despite these obligations, the complaint alleges that Ruffin forwarded proprietary materials to his personal email, including Swedish Institute’s Admissions Policies and Practices on June 16, 2026, and accessed the school’s systems post-employment (Compl. ¶¶153–155). The complaint also notes that Ruffin had direct knowledge of admissions representatives’ job titles, salaries, performance metrics, and compensation structures, which further facilitated his alleged solicitation efforts (Compl. ¶76).
The complaint alleges that Ruffin received adequate consideration under the Agreement, including a salary of $275,000 per year and a potential loyalty bonus of $125,000 (Compl. ¶116). The Agreement required Ruffin to "devote substantially all of the Executive’s business time, energy and skill to the performance of the Executive’s duties for Holdings and its subsidiaries (including the Company) (the ‘Swedish Group’)" and prohibited him from holding any other employment during the Period of Employment, stating: "No Other Employment; Minimum Time Commitment. During the Period of Employment, the Executive shall (a) devote substantially all of the Executive’s business time, energy and skill to the performance of the Executive’s duties for Holdings and its subsidiaries (including the Company) (the ‘Swedish Group’)..." (Compl. ¶¶83, 159). The complaint alleges that Ruffin’s employment with Lincoln constituted a clear violation of this provision.
Lincoln’s Alleged Role in Misappropriation and Unfair Competition
The complaint alleges that Lincoln Educational Services Corporation acquired and used Swedish Institute’s trade secrets through Ruffin. According to the filing, Ruffin accessed and took trade secrets while employed by Lincoln, including confidential admissions, marketing, pricing, and compensation materials (Compl. ¶¶101, 130). The complaint asserts a violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1839) against Lincoln, alleging that the company had actual knowledge of Ruffin’s employment agreement and its restrictive covenants, and intentionally procured his breaches (Compl. ¶¶173, 175). The complaint describes Lincoln’s alleged misappropriation as "willful and malicious, including because its officer and employee Mr. Ruffin took through an ongoing series of secret infiltrations" (Compl. ¶167). The filing further asserts that Lincoln’s programs directly overlap with Swedish Institute’s programs, creating direct competition (Compl. ¶125).
The complaint alleges that Lincoln participated in recruiting Swedish Institute employees who were solicited by Ruffin, including Ebony Williamson, Jennifer Smith, Kia Jones, and Anthony Jones (Compl. ¶176). The filing states that Lincoln bid on internet search advertising keywords associated with Swedish Institute, which the complaint describes as further evidence of unfair competition (Compl. ¶129). The complaint includes claims of tortious interference with contract and unfair competition against both Ruffin and Lincoln, alleging that Lincoln’s actions were intended to disrupt Swedish Institute’s contractual relationships and gain an unfair competitive advantage. The complaint emphasizes that the restrictive covenants in Ruffin’s Agreement were "necessary to protect the Swedish Group’s... confidential and proprietary information, goodwill, [and] stable workforce" (Compl. ¶131).
Legal Claims Under Federal and State Law
The complaint asserts a total of nine causes of action against Ruffin and Lincoln. In addition to the contract-based claims, the filing includes a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. § 1836) against both Ruffin and Lincoln. The complaint alleges that Swedish Institute made reasonable efforts to preserve the confidentiality of its trade secrets, which include student enrollment records, employee performance data, program pricing, marketing strategies, admissions policies, and budget and strategy documents (Compl. ¶¶94–95). The filing asserts that Ruffin was under a duty to keep these trade secrets confidential pursuant to paragraph 6.1(a) of the Agreement, which stated: "the Executive agrees to keep secret and to treat confidentially and not to... appropriate, divulge, disclose or otherwise disseminate to any other Person... any Protected Information" (Compl. ¶97). The complaint further alleges that Ruffin’s misappropriation was "willful and malicious" and included forwarding confidential information to his personal email, unauthorized access to systems, downloading trade secrets, and using or disclosing trade secrets to benefit Lincoln (Compl. ¶¶99–102). The complaint states that "Mr. Ruffin has used or intends to use Swedish Institute’s trade secrets for his own benefit and for the benefit of Lincoln" (Compl. ¶100).
The complaint also includes a claim for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)) against Ruffin, alleging that his unauthorized access to Swedish Institute’s protected computers post-March 16, 2026, caused losses exceeding the $5,000 minimum threshold required for a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) (Compl. ¶¶111, [CFAA threshold]).
The complaint further asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Ruffin, alleging that he breached his duties of loyalty and non-self-dealing by "soliciting Swedish Institute employees to leave and join a direct competitor while still serving as Chief Operating Officer," orchestrating a "raid" on Swedish Institute’s Admissions Department, forwarding confidential documents, and accessing systems without authorization post-departure (Compl. ¶¶158, 160, 167). The filing asserts that Ruffin’s actions caused Swedish Institute to suffer damages, including lost profits, costs associated with replacing key employees, and a reduction in revenue and EBITDA (Compl. ¶¶80, 162). The complaint describes Ruffin’s conduct as a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, stating that he "soliciting Swedish Institute employees to leave and join a direct competitor while still serving as Chief Operating Officer..." constituted a fundamental violation of his obligations (Compl. ¶160).
Background and Career Progression of Derrick Ruffin
Derrick Ruffin joined Swedish Institute in 2019 and held multiple leadership roles during his tenure. According to the complaint, Ruffin served as Director of Admissions from 2019 to 2020, Vice President of Enrollment Operations from 2020 to 2021, and Chief Operating Officer from 2021 until his resignation in early February 2026 (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges that Ruffin’s roles provided him with access to sensitive trade secrets and confidential business information, which he later misappropriated for the benefit of Lincoln. On December 18, 2025, Swedish Institute executed a Bill of Sale for its acquisition by Lottus Education, a transaction that occurred during Ruffin’s tenure as COO.
The complaint details the timeline of Ruffin’s alleged misconduct, including his solicitation of Swedish Institute employees while still employed by the school. In March 2026, Ruffin solicited Kia Jones, who confirmed job opening details with Ruffin on March 12, 2026, while both were still employed by Swedish Institute (Compl. ¶66). Ruffin’s last day at Swedish Institute was March 16, 2026, which the complaint refers to as the "Severance Date," marking the beginning of the Restricted Period under his employment agreement. Despite his departure, Ruffin continued to access Swedish Institute’s Microsoft OneDrive system from March 17 to June 25, 2026, downloading additional confidential materials (Compl. ¶51).
Requested Relief and Next Steps
The complaint seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including an order to enjoin Ruffin and Lincoln from retaining, using, or disclosing Swedish Institute’s trade secrets or confidential information. It also requests injunctive relief to bar Ruffin from working for Lincoln or any competitor within the 50-mile restricted area defined in his Agreement and to prohibit him from soliciting Swedish Institute employees, as outlined in paragraph 6.2(c) of the Agreement. The complaint further requests the return of all trade secrets and protected information, as well as expedited discovery and a computer forensics protocol to preserve evidence of Ruffin’s alleged unauthorized access.
The complaint demands economic damages under the CFAA, actual, incidental, compensatory, and consequential damages, disgorgement of all compensation, profits, or benefits derived from Ruffin’s breaches and Lincoln’s misappropriation, punitive damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D). Swedish Institute also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and requests a jury trial. The complaint emphasizes that Swedish Institute "has suffered and... continues to suffer irreparable injury and competitive harm" as a result of Ruffin’s and Lincoln’s alleged actions, stating: "Swedish Institute has suffered irreparable injury and competitive harm" (Compl. ¶103). The filing asserts that the harm includes the loss of key employees, disruption to its admissions operations, and the unauthorized use of its trade secrets by a direct competitor.
The allegations in the complaint are unproven, and no defendant has yet responded in court.
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com