Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC

Background

Manmohan Uttarwar sued his former employers, Lazard Asset Management LLC and Keri Tusa. He asserted fourteen causes of action under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged discrimination based on religion, race, national origin, familial status, caregiver status, and parenthood; retaliation for requesting parental leave; retaliation for complaining about discrimination; and hostile work environments based on religion, race, and national origin.

Uttarwar worked at Lazard from May 14, 2018, until September 25, 2019, as a Senior Vice President and Senior Trading Technology Engineer. He received negative performance reviews from Tusa in 2018 and 2019. He alleged that Tusa removed subordinates from his department, excluded him from meetings, moved him from a private office, and treated him worse than John LaBadia, another Senior Vice President. Uttarwar requested and received twenty weeks of paid parental leave beginning September 3, 2019. While he was on leave, Lazard informed him that his employment was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. The reduction affected more than 50 employees, including three other IT employees.

The court also noted that Uttarwar did not take depositions during discovery, repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and orders, and submitted a deficient statement responding to Defendants’ asserted facts. The court had previously denied his request to reopen discovery and had ordered him to pay costs resulting from discovery violations. Even so, the court independently reviewed the record and viewed disputed facts in the light most favorable to Uttarwar.

Employment Discrimination Claims

The court applied the more plaintiff-friendly standards of the New York City Human Rights Law and concluded that Uttarwar’s claims failed even under those standards. It therefore also granted summary judgment on the related New York State claims.

Uttarwar identified negative reviews, loss of supervisees, an allegedly excessive workload, exclusion from meetings, and termination as adverse treatment. The court found that termination was actionable and that at least some other alleged actions could satisfy the New York City standard. But the court concluded that Uttarwar failed to establish a sufficient inference of discriminatory intent based on race, national origin, or religion.

Uttarwar compared himself with John LaBadia. The court found that the two were not similarly situated in all material respects because LaBadia had substantially greater seniority, supervised three employees while Uttarwar supervised none, and had positive performance reviews while Uttarwar had negative reviews. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the two employees similarly situated based on the undisputed record.

The court did not decide the merits of Uttarwar’s argument that the timing of his travel to India for a religious festival and a later negative review showed discrimination because he raised that argument for the first time in his opposition brief. The court also did not decide whether the timing between Uttarwar’s parental leave and termination was enough to establish an initial discrimination showing. Instead, it held that Defendants had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination: a company-wide reduction in force and Uttarwar’s documented negative performance reviews.

The court concluded that Uttarwar failed to show that those reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Positive emails about some of his work did not create a genuine factual dispute about the negative reviews or show discriminatory intent. The court held that disagreement with an employer’s assessment of work performance and temporal proximity alone were insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Summary judgment was therefore granted on the discrimination claims.

Retaliation Claims

Uttarwar claimed that Lazard terminated him because he requested or took parental leave, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and because he complained about discrimination, in violation of the New York State and New York City laws.

For the Family and Medical Leave Act claim, the court assumed, without deciding, that Uttarwar could establish an initial retaliation case. It nevertheless held that Defendants had shown a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination—the reduction in force and Uttarwar’s negative performance reviews—and that Uttarwar had not shown that taking or requesting leave was the necessary cause of his termination. His termination while on leave established timing, but the court held that timing without additional evidence was insufficient to show pretext.

The court also held that Uttarwar had not shown that he engaged in protected activity under the New York retaliation claims. He complained that his removal from the office was discriminatory and that Tusa’s performance criticisms were discriminatory, but the record did not show that he told Defendants the alleged discrimination was based on his race, religion, national origin, familial status, or caregiver status. The court concluded that using terms such as “discrimination” and “disparate treatment” without identifying the protected basis did not establish protected activity. It further held that, even assuming his complaints were protected, timing alone did not establish retaliation because adverse employment actions and performance concerns had begun earlier. The court stated that the New York City and, to the extent applicable, post-amendment New York State retaliation claims must be dismissed.

Hostile Work Environment Claims

Uttarwar alleged that Defendants created hostile work environments because of his religion, race, and national origin. The court assumed, without deciding, that he could satisfy the first part of a hostile-work-environment claim, but held that he failed to show that the alleged hostility occurred because of a protected characteristic.

Under both the New York State and New York City standards, the court found no direct evidence of discriminatory comments or other evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to Uttarwar’s protected characteristics. His own conclusory allegations and speculation were insufficient. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all counts. Because Defendants prevailed on liability for every claim, the court did not address their motion concerning backpay or frontpay damages. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 48.