Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc.
2:14-cv-07509
E.D.N.YMar 9, 2018Background
- Danielle Markou (née Lenzi) was Systemax’s Vice President of Risk Management; she complained in 2011–2013 about compensation, staffing (particularly product safety/product compliance), and resources, and announced her pregnancy in May/June 2013.
- After an internal audit of a April 2013 RIMS conference expense report and related inquiries, Systemax placed Markou on paid leave (June 21, 2013) and terminated her for cause on June 26, 2013; Markou filed EEOC and DOL complaints and then this lawsuit.
- In her Second Amended Complaint Markou alleged: Equal Pay Act and NYLL wage discrimination and retaliation; Title VII, PDA, and NYSHRL gender/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation; CPSIA whistleblower (15 U.S.C. § 2087) retaliation; and SOX retaliation (the SOX claim was earlier dismissed).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) Markou could not identify male comparators performing substantially equal work, her complaints were not protected activity (ambiguous staffing/compensation complaints), her CPSIA belief was not objectively reasonable, and there is no evidence pregnancy or sex motivated the termination.
- The district court found (1) Markou’s proposed comparators held substantially different jobs (different skills, duties, qualifications) so she could not make out Equal Pay/NYLL or Title VII pay claims; (2) her gender- and pregnancy-based discrimination/retaliation claims failed for lack of evidence of discriminatory animus or protected activity; (3) her CPSIA whistleblower claim failed because her complaints concerned staffing and compensation, not a reasonably objective belief of a statutory CPSIA violation; and (4) summary judgment was GRANTED in favor of defendants and the SAC was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Markou can establish unequal pay (EPA/NYLL) by comparing her to male "vice presidents" | Markou: her duties overlap with male department-head comparators and she was paid less; benchmarking undervalued her role (excluded product compliance duties). | Defendants: comparators (Internal Audit, CFO, European Controller, GC, Facilities) performed substantially different work requiring different skills/credentials; benchmarking justified pay differences. | Court: Held for defendants — jobs not substantially equal; plaintiff admitted she could not perform comparators’ jobs; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Title VII / NYSHRL gender- or PDA pregnancy-discrimination claims survive | Markou: proffers comments by Reinhold and other workplace incidents to establish discriminatory animus and disparate treatment. | Defendants: remarks were stray/boorish, no causal or temporal nexus to compensation or termination, and no evidence pregnancy motivated firing. | Court: Held for defendants — evidence insufficient to infer discriminatory animus or pregnancy-based motivation; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Markou engaged in protected activity and can show retaliation (EPA, Title VII, NYSHRL) | Markou: March 29, 2013 email and other complaints put company on notice that she opposed unlawful pay/resource allocation and thus engaged in protected activity. | Defendants: complaints were ambiguous (requesting pay parity/ resources), not framed as sex-based discrimination or statutory violations, so not protected activity; no causal link to termination. | Court: Held for defendants — complaints not specific enough to be protected activity; prima facie retaliation fails; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Markou’s CPSIA whistleblower claim is valid | Markou: repeatedly complained about lack of product compliance coverage and reasonably believed CPSIA violations could result; Reinhold’s email acknowledged whistleblower-type communications. | Defendants: March 29th concerns were staffing/budget issues, not information that a CPSIA violation occurred or was occurring; CPSIA does not impose specific staffing rules; plaintiff lacked objectively reasonable belief of violation. | Court: Held for defendants — objectively unreasonable to construe staffing/resource complaints as CPSIA-protected whistleblowing; summary judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; nonmoving party must show genuine issue)
- EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (standards for ‘‘equal work’’ in Equal Pay Act claims)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (title/description alone insufficient to show equal work)
- Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court on summary judgment may rely only on admissible evidence)
- Nassar v. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr., 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)