Lombardo v. Camuto Group LLC

Background

Katreen Lombardo asserted claims against Camuto Group LLC for breach of contract, unlawful wage deductions under New York Labor Law § 193, and retaliation under New York Labor Law § 215. Camuto moved for summary judgment on all claims, and Lombardo filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the contract and wage-deduction claims.

Lombardo’s 2014 offer letter provided for a $30,000 “Guaranteed Bonus” beginning with services rendered during 2014 and payable by March 2015. It also provided for a future discretionary bonus beginning with services rendered during 2015 and payable by March 2016. Lombardo argued that the guaranteed bonus was an annual $30,000 payment. Camuto argued that it was a one-time payment due in 2015.

Lombardo received bonuses of $30,000 in 2015, $30,000 in 2016, and $22,145 in 2017. In 2019 and 2020, she complained that Camuto had failed to pay the guaranteed bonus. She later claimed that Camuto retaliated by reassigning duties, excluding her from meetings and a leadership conference, failing to promote her, failing to pay another bonus, and failing to bring her back after a pandemic-related furlough.

Contract and Wage-Deduction Claims

The court held that the guaranteed-bonus provision was ambiguous. The provision did not expressly say that the bonus was annual, unlike the provision for the future discretionary bonus. But the guaranteed-bonus provision also used language—such as “beginning with services rendered during the 2014 calendar year” and references to the “calendar year period” and “following year”—that could support Lombardo’s interpretation.

The extrinsic evidence, meaning evidence outside the written contract, did not resolve the issue as a matter of law. The court considered another employee’s offer letter, internal Camuto communications, and Lombardo’s response to her 2017 bonus. It concluded that this evidence was not so one-sided that only one interpretation was reasonable. Because the contract’s meaning presented a factual issue, the court denied summary judgment to both parties on the breach-of-contract and New York Labor Law § 193 claims.

Retaliation Claim

The court concluded that Lombardo’s complaints about the unpaid bonus could qualify as protected complaints under New York Labor Law § 215. The complaints did not need to identify the statute specifically; they needed to be clear enough for a reasonable employer to understand that she was asserting rights protected by the labor law. The court found that Lombardo’s 2019 complaint to Simon Nankervis and her counsel’s 2020 letter met that standard.

The court rejected several retaliation theories at summary judgment. It found that Lombardo’s evidence about reassigned duties and exclusion from meetings was too vague and insufficient to show the required connection to her complaints. It also found insufficient evidence that Sarah Rosen knew about Lombardo’s complaints when the leadership-conference invitation was withdrawn. On the failure-to-promote theory, the court found that Camuto had offered a legitimate reason for promoting Rosen and that Lombardo had not provided enough evidence to show that reason was a pretext. The court also deemed Lombardo’s theory that Camuto withheld a later bonus abandoned because she did not address it in her opposition papers.

The court denied summary judgment on Lombardo’s theory that Camuto retaliated by failing to bring her back after furlough. The close timing between her 2020 complaint and the end of her employment supported an inference of causation. Lombardo also stated that she was the only person in her department who was not rehired, while Camuto argued that her specialty was no longer needed. The court found a genuine dispute of material fact on that issue.

Disposition

The court denied Lombardo’s motion for partial summary judgment. It denied Camuto’s motion for summary judgment in part, leaving the contract claim, the New York Labor Law § 193 claim, and the failure-to-rehire retaliation theory unresolved at this stage. The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation theories that it found could not survive summary judgment, including the failure-to-promote theory and the theories based on reassigned duties, meeting exclusion, and the leadership conference.