Skip to main content

A Couple Discriminatory Statements By Female VP Allow a Sex Discrimination Claim to Proceed


Lenart v. Coach, Inc. - United States District Court, Southern District of New York


Facts:  Todd Lenart ("Lenart") was hired by Coach in February 2012, by the Tax Department's Vice President Thomas Shortway.  In his position, Lenart served as Divisional Vice President of International Tax.  During his time at Coach, Lenart claimed that he experienced a hostile work environment and was discriminated against based upon his sex and gender by two female supervisors.  Lenart believed that men were subjected to a more rigorous hiring process than women and thought that Coach favored hiring women over men.  Even once an employee started at Coach, Lenart believed that women were given preferential treatment over men.  At one point, a male colleague of Lenart's said that a senior Vice President (who was female) said she wanted to have a staff of all women.

After working at Coach for about a year, Lenart was fired on the grounds of a reorganization of the tax function which resulted in the elimination of his position.  Apparently, most of Lenart's responsibilities were taken over by a female.  As well, a former colleague of Lenart told him that a senior Vice President (who was female) said during a meeting that she had created a "girl power team based in New York."

Lenart subsequently sued Coach on the grounds of sex discrimination, a violation of Title VII and a few New York statutes.  Coach moved to dismiss the complaint. 

Holding:  (For the purposes of this analysis, I am highlighting the portion of Lenart's claim that dealt with sex discrimination.).  The Court pointed out that in order for Lenart to defeat the motion to dismiss, he needed to have alleged that he "is a member of a protected class, was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and has at least minimal support for the proposition that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent."  The fact that Lenart was replaced by a female (or his responsibilities were assumed by a female) was sufficient to establish at least an inference of discrimination.  

As well, an inference could be drawn that the female senior Vice President who made comments about a "girl power" team and that she wanted to have a staff of all women played a role in the decision to terminate Lenart.  As a result of these discriminatory statements and that a female assumed Lenart's responsibilities upon his termination, there was sufficient evidence to allow the claim to proceed.

Judgment:  The District Court found sufficient evidence to establish a discriminatory intent by Coach when it terminated Lenart to allow Lenart's sex discrimination claim proceed.

The Takeaway:  This case is an example of a claimant needing the bare minimum of evidence to not have their claim dismissed at the outset.  In this instance, the Court found just that:  the statements made by the senior Vice President lent themselves to the inference that women were favored over men.  Couple those statements with the fact that a female assumed most of Lenart's responsibilities when he was terminated, and given the low threshold to allow a claimant to proceed, Lenart's claim was not dismissed.  Whether this evidence of allegedly discriminatory statements has enough meat to get the case to trial is unclear.  But as with any good case, it lives to see another day. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Furman

Date:  September 11, 2015

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/LenartCoach.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more