Some authors traffic in irony, some have irony foisted upon them. In the latter category, best-selling author and authority on bullying Barbara Coloroso has found herself embroiled in a legal tangle with the putative co-author of a book on bullying in the workplace.
Coloroso has accused her erstwhile colleague, a Canadian businessman named Andrew Faas, of plagiarism; Faas has fired back by calling the accusations “slanderous” and claiming that Coloroso is engaging in a campaign of, well, bullying.
According to an article in the Toronto Star, the farrago is centred on a book the authors were to collaborate on. The Star indicates that a friend introduced Faas to Coloroso, who secured a deal “ and a $100,000 advance “ with her long-time publisher, HarperCollins. The first draft of a manuscript was due on Aug. 1, 2011. That deadline was allegedly missed, which, according to the Star, is when things started to fall apart.
Coloroso was perturbed by what she claims were repeated instances of plagiarism in Faas’s portion of the writing. Faas, for his part, claims Coloroso didn’t do any writing at all prior to the Aug. 1 deadline.
From the Star:
Faas is suing Coloroso for $1.1 million, alleging in a statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court that she did not complete her portion of the work by deadline and then unilaterally terminated their agreement with HarperCollins.
Coloroso has countersued for $1.5 million, alleging he committed blatant acts of plagiarism and copyright infringement from sources including Wikipedia.
Each is claiming the other breached the contract. He denies her allegations and she denies his.
I am stunned and troubled because my reputation and good will accumulated over the last forty years is at stake, Coloroso wrote in a September 2011 email to Faas and their editors, which is filed in her statement of defence.
Faas suggests that the plagiarism allegations are malicious and could adversely affect his reputation, adding that “this is a tactic used by bullies.”
Whether or not the claim of bullying is legitimate, the Star also points out that portions of an unedited manuscript Faas subsequently placed with Tate Publishing, and which appeared briefly online, bear striking similarities to archived Wikipedia articles. None of the allegations has been proved in court.
Contact us via email
