In Leone v. Brown Forman Corp., No. 151627/2019, 2025 WL 1146136 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 17, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor on their retaliation claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
The branch of Defendant’s motion seeking judgment as a matter of law is denied. Defendant first argues that Plaintiff failed to show causation because the temporal proximity between Plaintiffs complaints and his termination is too attenuated. However, the First Department has repeatedly held that where there are other facts supporting causation, a lack of temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is not fatal to a retaliation claim (Local 621 v New York City Department of Transportation, 178 AD3d 78, 83 [1st Dept 2019]; Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582, 586 [1st Dept 2018]).
In any event, the record placed before the jury was sufficient to allow the jury to find retaliatory animus within one month of Plaintiff complaining about discrimination. In the summer of 2017, Plaintiff testified he began experiencing symptoms of ulcerative colitis, which included blood loss, fatigue, insomnia, and gastrointestinal pains (Tr. 236). Plaintiff had communicated these issues to his supervisor, Michael Accorsi (Id.). In October of 2017, as part of a structural reorganization, Plaintiff was given a new job title with similar responsibilities (Tr. 236). Simultaneously, Plaintiff was given a “development plan.” According to Diane Nguyen, Defendant’s Vice President of Human Resources, Defendant used development plans commonly; they were not considered punishment and could be used to help employees get to the next “job or career path” (Tr. 656). Plaintiff testified he completed the plan and his supervisor, Michael Accorsi communicated to him verbally that he had completed it successfully (Tr. 246).
On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff testified he met with Mr. Accorsi and the territory manager of New York and New Jersey, Danielle Goodson (Tr. 252). According to Plaintiff, the minute the meeting started he was met with an unprofessional, hostile, and berating atmosphere that ended with Mr. Accorsi apparently kicking a chair and slamming a door (Tr. 252-53). Plaintiff testified that on February 27, 2018, he was running late to a meeting with Mr. Accorsi and others because he was next door consummating a sale (Tr. 254-259). Nonetheless, when Plaintiff arrived at the meeting, Mr. Accorsi “excoriated” Plaintiff in front of 70-100 employees consisting of management and the Brown-Forman salesforce (Tr. 259). On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff complained to Mr. Accorsi, Ms. Goodson, and Human Resources that he was being targeted based on his age and health issues, and that he was concerned he was being tasked with extra administrative work that he believed other employees were not tasked with (Tr. 259-60). One month later, on April 30, 2018, Plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan (Tr. 267-68). According to Ms. Nguyen, performance improvement plans are different from development plans and can result in termination (Tr. 657). On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff was invited to an industry event where he had on multiple prior occasions given presentations, but that year he was not allowed to present and instead just served wine (Tr. 273). On June 10, 2018, Plaintiff took medical leave for his worsening ulcerative colitis.
The jury heard other evidence which they were entitled to construe as scheming by Brown-Forman management to force Plaintiff out of the company. On June 5, 2018, Johnny Manuel, the head of sales at Brown-Forman, e-mailed Ms. Nguyen and asked if Plaintiff qualified for an early retirement plan – when Ms. Nguyen stated he did not, Mr. Manuel stated he was “thinking of how to finish this easier for all.” Ms. Nguyen responded with “[w]e will get there…Amanda [a human resources employee] is on it!” A few weeks later, on June 25, 2018, another e-mail from Johnny Manuel to Ms. Nguyen stated they “need to talk” and that “I expect some problems when he returns from [short-term disability]) (Tr. 695:7-26). Plaintiff returned to work on October 7, 2018 and continued until he was hospitalized on October 22, 2018, after which he remained on unpaid leave until his termination in January of 2019.
Given this timeline of events and the evidence presented, it was not utterly irrational for the jury to find that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about discrimination. Indeed, the conduct presented to the jury was neither temporally attenuated nor a mere continuation of Plaintiff’s development plan but constituted new and escalated conduct that provides a well-founded basis for the jury’s factual determination (see, e.g. Doe v New York City Police Department, 190 AD3d 411, 413 [1st Dept 2021]). Moreover, given the e-mail correspondence between Mr. Manuel and Ms. Nguyen, and the testimony of other witnesses who had no recollection of Plaintiff picking up the thousands of dollars of allegedly missing merchandise, the jury was entitled to discredit Defendant’s basis for terminating Plaintiff (Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Prods, Inc., 120 US 133, 147-148 [2000]; Sheridan v E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1085 [3d Cir. 1996] [Alito, J. concurring]). It was for the jury to assess the witnesses’ credibility and ascertain whether Plaintiff was terminated for the allegedly false invoices or because of retaliatory animus.
Finally, even if the jury believed that Defendant did fire Plaintiff for its proffered reason, under the New York City Human Rights Law’s mixed motive test, and given the evidence presented, the jury was entitled to find that retaliatory animus was another motivating favor in terminating Plaintiff (Franco v Hyatt Corp., 189 AD3d 569, 571-572 [1st Dept 2020]).
Accordingly, denial of defendant’s motion was warranted.
The court also, referring to its analysis of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, likewise denied defendant’s motion for a new trial on plaintiff’s retaliation claim.