Pogil v. KPMG L.L.P.
1:21-cv-07628
| S.D.N.Y. | Sep 24, 2024Background
- Boris Pogil worked as a Senior Tax Associate for KPMG, with significant prior experience and a Master’s Degree in Taxation.
- In 2020, KPMG identified Pogil as a low performer and placed him primarily on the Bank of America Paycheck Protection Program (BOA PPP) project during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Pogil’s employment was terminated in October 2020 as part of a reduction in force (RIF).
- Pogil filed related lawsuits in both New York state court and federal court, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and seeking overtime compensation.
- The New York state court, and on appeal the Appellate Division, dismissed his discrimination and retaliation claims; the federal court subsequently considered if these rulings barred his federal claims and whether he was entitled to overtime pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata (preclusion) of claims | Title VII claims are not precluded by state court action | State court judgment precludes federal discrimination claims | Title VII claims precluded by state court final judgment |
| Overtime exemption under FLSA/NYLL | PPP project duties were non-exempt, deserving overtime pay | Plaintiff's primary duty remained exempt professional work | Plaintiff remained 'learned professional,' not due overtime |
| Mixed-motive theory | State courts erred by not considering mixed-motive | Irrelevant under res judicata; provides no new cause | Prior errors do not defeat res judicata |
| False evidence in state court | State court judgment used false affidavits | Fraud claims must be addressed in original forum | Alleged fraud does not prevent application of res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden on nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc., 548 F.3d 191 (requirements for res judicata under NY law)
- Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int’l, 231 F.3d 82 (federal courts must give preclusive effect to state judgments)
- Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347 (standard for granting summary judgment)