Pang v. Cushman & Wakefield

Background

Ivan To Man Pang sued Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc., Anthony Ye, William Carley, and Renae Stokke. The opinion describes Pang as representing himself. He alleged race, national-origin, and sex discrimination 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. He also alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the two New York laws; a hostile work environment under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York laws; and retaliation under Title VII and the New York laws.

Pang worked as a Senior Accountant beginning in March 2014. His performance ratings improved from 2014 through 2017, but he received a Needs Improvement rating in 2018, did not receive a salary increase, and received only half of his projected bonus. He complained about compensation and treatment at work, sought an internal transfer, and objected to his performance evaluation and a Memorandum of Expectations. After Pang complained to human resources that he had been treated unfairly because of his gender or race, the company investigated and offered him severance if he chose to resign.

On May 28, 2019, Pang forwarded two emails to his personal email account. Defendants said the emails contained confidential personally identifiable information belonging to Cushman & Wakefield’s client. Pang admitted sending the emails but denied that they contained personally identifiable information. After an investigation, Cushman & Wakefield terminated his employment on May 31, 2019, stating that he had violated its Global Code of Business Conduct.

Report and recommendation and objections

After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment and Pang filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court had referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Netburn, who recommended granting defendants’ motion and denying Pang’s motion. The recommendation concluded that Pang had not established a prima facie case—a basic showing required to proceed—of race, national-origin, sex, or age discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. It also concluded that, even if Pang had made the initial showing for some discrimination claims, he had not raised a trial-worthy dispute about whether defendants’ stated reasons were discriminatory.

Pang objected to the recommendation. The court explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while general objections or repeated arguments are reviewed for clear error. The court found that Pang’s objections mainly repeated arguments previously presented, mischaracterized the recommendation, or misrepresented the record. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Court’s analysis

For the race, national-origin, and sex discrimination claims, the court agreed that Pang had not shown that several challenged actions were legally adverse employment actions or occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination. The court stated that the 2018 performance evaluation and its effects on Pang’s compensation were adverse employment actions, but Pang had not provided evidence connecting them to discrimination. The court also agreed that Pang’s proposed comparators were not suitable and that defendants had legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations for the different treatment, including salary differences.

For the age discrimination claims, the court noted that Pang relied on being over 50 and the oldest person on the team but acknowledged that he had no obvious evidence of age discrimination. The court therefore agreed that summary judgment for defendants was appropriate.

For the hostile work environment claims, the court held that Pang’s objections did not explain how the record showed harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment. The court agreed that the alleged assignment of work outside his formal role and the handling of his complaints did not establish such a claim.

For retaliation, the court agreed that defendants had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Pang and that Pang had not shown that the termination was retaliation for protected activity. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s analysis of the incidents Pang claimed were protected activity.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. Pang’s cross-motion for summary judgment or a default judgment was denied. The case was dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for defendants, mail the order to Pang, and close the case.