Price v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
808 F. Supp. 2d 670
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Price, a former Cushman broker, sues Cushman & Wakefield and Podell alleging Title VII discrimination and related state and city claims, breach of contract, and tort/illicit conduct theories arising from 2005–2006 events and his 2006 termination.
- Podell was a senior Cushman broker; Price joined Cushman in 2003–2004 after leaving Eastern Consolidated; initial oral commission agreement allegedly provided 20% on Podell-originated deals and 50% on Price-originated deals; disputes over commissions intensified in 2006.
- Price’s son Noah died in October 2005; Price’s religious observance became more devout in Chabad, affecting workplace conduct and his interactions with Podell.
- In 2005–2006, Price alleges Podell interfered with his prayers, required him to hide siddurs, and made other comments about his religiosity; he also sought permission to hang a mezuzah which was denied.
- Price alleges discriminatory acts continued through 2006 with the commission-dispute process, Reingold’s “management decision” on commissions, Price’s move to the eighth floor, and ultimately his 2006 termination.
- Price filed an EEOC complaint on July 24, 2007; the court grants summary judgment in part and deniess in part, allowing some state and city-law claims to survive and dismissing others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII discrete acts | Price contends discrete acts within 300 days support timely claims. | Defendants argue these acts are time-barred except as part of hostile environment. | Discrete-act claims are time-barred; only termination remains timely. |
| Disparate treatment under Title VII | Price claims discriminatory animus evidenced by multiple acts and by pretext in commission decisions. | Defendants contend no direct evidence; must use McDonnell Douglas framework. | Analyses under McDonnell Douglas; genuine issues of material fact remain as to pretext. |
| Hostile work environment under Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL | Price asserts a pattern of religious-discrimination–related harassment. | Defendants contend conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | Hostile work environment claim survives state and city-law analysis. |
| Failure to accommodate religious practices | Defendant failed to accommodate Price’s morning prayers and tefillin. | No adverse action established; no cognizable failure to accommodate. | State-law claim dismissed; city-law claim survives. |
| Arbitration clause and jury waiver | Arbitration clause governs Price-Podell disputes; Podell waived arbitration rights. | Arbitration clause precludes certain claims; jury waiver applies. | Arbitration clause does not preclude claims against Cushman; podell waiver applies; jury trial waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (establishes mixed-motive framework in discrimination actions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for retaliation causation and adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile environment vs. discrete acts timeliness guidance)
- Gant ex rel. Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999) (pretext burden when no direct evidence of discrimination)
- Pucino v. Verizon Wireless Communications, Inc., 618 F.3d 112 (2010) (standard for retaliation proof and prima facie case)
- Leifer v. New York State Div. of Parole, 391 Fed.Appx. 32 (2d Cir. 2010) (hostile environment/anti-religious discrimination considerations)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (framework for evaluating harassment and causation)