Li v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
1:16-cv-02484
S.D.N.Y.May 3, 2017Background
- Li (Chinese national, age 47 at promotion) worked as Director on C&W’s international desk (iDesk); promoted April 1, 2015 after positive reviews.
- C&W merged with DTZ in Sept. 2015; iDesk restructured from seven employees to four; Victor became global lead and Li was moved to a support role and later terminated (employment ended Dec. 31, 2015).
- Li alleges she was demoted and then fired because of national origin, age, and gender under NYSHRL and NYCHRL; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Evidence included isolated derogatory remarks by non-decisionmakers about Chinese clients, that Li was the only Chinese employee pre-merger and the oldest iDesk employee, and that C&W adopted a generalist model and cited workforce reduction.
- Court treated demotion claims differently under NYSHRL (more stringent) and NYCHRL (broader); granted summary judgment on gender claims and NYSHRL demotion claim, but denied as to NYCHRL demotion and firing and NYSHRL firing claims for national origin and age.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the post-merger change in duties a demotion (adverse action)? | Li: lost responsibility, independence, and ability to contact brokers directly — a demotion. | C&W: title, pay, benefits unchanged; changes were reorganization-related, not materially adverse. | NYSHRL demotion: no adverse action. NYCHRL demotion: plaintiff showed treated less well; survives summary judgment. |
| National-origin discrimination (demotion & firing) — intent/inference | Li: derogatory comments about Chinese clients, only Chinese employee pre-merger, replaced after reorg. | C&W: legitimate reorg, shift to generalist model, familiarity with other employees, workforce reduction. | Prima facie established for national origin; defendants’ non-discriminatory reasons not dispositive on summary judgment — claim survives. |
| Age discrimination (demotion & firing) — intent/causation | Li: she was the oldest iDesk employee and was terminated in the reorg. | C&W: legitimate reorg and staffing choices unrelated to age. | Prima facie for age established; but must prove but-for causation at trial — claim survives summary judgment. |
| Gender discrimination | Li: only woman pre-reorg and was fired. | C&W: after reorg same number of women retained/hired (e.g., Daga); no evidence of bias. | No prima facie evidence of gender discrimination; summary judgment granted to defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. County of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard on factual disputes)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (summary judgment burden and inferences)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N.A., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL construed broadly; differential treatment standard)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (evidence that may support inference of discrimination)
- Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2015) (caution on summary judgment in employment discrimination cases)