Gold v. Titlevest Agency LLC

Background

Jacqueline Gold sued her former employer, Titlevest Agency LLC, and its parent company, First American Title Insurance Company. She alleged gender and age discrimination, retaliatory termination, and a gender-based hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Gold initially also asserted a federal age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, but she later voluntarily dismissed that claim.

Gold began working for Titlevest in July 2014 as Senior Vice President of Operations. After First American acquired Titlevest, Brian Tormey became President of Titlevest and a First American vice president, and Gold continued reporting to him. In 2017, First American brought in John Paku to oversee New York operations. Paku, with Michael Koors’s approval, decided to eliminate Gold’s position and terminate her employment in August 2017. Defendants said the decision was intended to create a flatter organizational structure and improve performance. Gold argued that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination and retaliation for her reports about Tormey’s alleged favoritism toward younger female employees, known as “Brian’s Angels.”

Paku’s unavailable deposition

Gold argued that summary judgment should be prevented because Paku could not be deposed. Paku submitted a sworn statement saying that stage IV kidney cancer and treatment caused problems with mental clarity and memory loss and prevented him from participating in a written or oral deposition. The court concluded that his Facebook posts and an earlier interview did not contradict that explanation. The court therefore proceeded without Paku’s deposition testimony.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must generally view disputed facts in favor of the party opposing the motion, but it may consider only evidence that is admissible or could be presented in admissible form at trial.

Termination claims

For Gold’s Title VII gender-discrimination and retaliation claims, the court applied the three-step burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The framework first requires the employee to make an initial showing of discrimination or retaliation. The employer may then give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for its action. The employee must ultimately present admissible evidence allowing a reasonable factfinder to conclude that discrimination or retaliation caused the action.

The court assumed, for purposes of the gender-discrimination analysis, that Gold could make the required initial showing. It nevertheless held that no reasonable jury could find that her termination was more likely than not based in whole or in part on gender discrimination. The court found evidence supporting defendants’ explanation: Paku had been brought in to improve New York operations, Gold’s role was eliminated a few months later, no one replaced her in that role, and some of her former responsibilities were distributed among other employees. Gold’s raises, bonuses, praise, and earlier expectation of a long future at Titlevest did not show that defendants’ explanation was false, particularly because those matters involved people other than Paku, whom the record identified as the principal decisionmaker.

The court also found insufficient evidence of gender-based intent. Gold’s allegations about Tormey’s insulting or overbearing comments did not connect those comments to her gender. Her allegations about “Brian’s Angels” likewise did not show that Tormey’s alleged favoritism reflected discriminatory animus against Gold. Gold testified that she did not recall Tormey speaking inappropriately to female employees, and the court found that Tormey played no role, or at most a minor role, in the termination decision. The court also rejected Gold’s attempt to use an affidavit to contradict her earlier sworn testimony about Paku’s conduct.

As to retaliation, the court considered several alleged reports. It found that Gold’s complaints about Tormey’s comments and the “Brian’s Angels” conversation with Tormey did not show that she reasonably believed she was opposing conduct prohibited by Title VII. The court assumed that Gold’s complaint to human resources about favoritism toward “Brian’s Angels” could qualify as protected activity, but held that Gold could not show a causal connection to her termination. Gold’s own testimony placed that complaint in February 2016, approximately eighteen months before her termination. The court held that this timing, without other evidence of retaliatory motive, was insufficient. It granted defendants summary judgment on the Title VII gender-discrimination and retaliation claims.

The court applied the Title VII standard to the corresponding New York State claims and reached the same result. It also granted summary judgment on the corresponding New York City claims, concluding that no reasonable factfinder could determine that gender discrimination or retaliation played any part in the termination. For any remaining New York State and New York City age-discrimination claims, the court likewise found insufficient evidence that age discrimination played any role in the termination.

Hostile-work-environment claims

For the Title VII and New York State hostile-work-environment claims, Gold had to show that the workplace was permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and that the conduct occurred because of her sex. The New York City law uses a more forgiving standard, requiring proof that she was treated less well because of her gender, subject to an employer defense for petty slights and trivial inconveniences.

The court held that Gold’s evidence did not meet any of these standards. Her allegations about “Brian’s Angels” were largely based on what she heard from others, and she did not explain how the alleged favoritism caused her to be treated less well. The court also found no evidence connecting to gender her removal from a financial-report email list, temporary exclusion from an email about salary adjustments and promotions, Paku’s allegedly rude treatment, or Koors’s stopping meetings with her. The court granted defendants summary judgment on the Title VII, New York State, and New York City hostile-work-environment claims.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case and stated that Dkt. No. 52 was resolved.