I. Introduction

Overview of the Case:

The legal dispute in Ahouva Steinberg v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., et al. centers on the employment allegations made by the plaintiff, Ahouva Steinberg, against her former employers. Steinberg, who identifies as a gay Jewish woman, alleges that during her employment as a property manager, she was subjected to a hostile work environment, discrimination based on her religion, gender, and sexual orientation, and retaliation after raising concerns about this treatment.

The defendants in this case include Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., related entities, and individuals within the company, specifically Steinberg’s supervisor, Maya Liepa. The plaintiff’s complaint outlines a series of incidents that she contends were discriminatory and retaliatory, creating a toxic work environment that ultimately forced her to resign—a situation she characterizes as constructive discharge.

This case is significant as it raises questions about the protections afforded under federal, state, and local employment laws, particularly in the context of hostile work environments and the expanding interpretations of gender and sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Purpose of the Commentary:

This legal commentary aims to analyze the allegations in the complaint, particularly focusing on the legal claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Additionally, this commentary will examine the potential impact of the Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision on the plaintiff’s claims, especially concerning hostile work environments and retaliation.

The commentary will also explore the concept of constructive discharge and guide how individuals facing similar legal issues can protect their rights under these laws.

II. Background of the Case

A. Overview of Ahouva Steinberg’s Allegations:

Ahouva Steinberg’s complaint alleges discriminatory and retaliatory actions by her employers, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., associated entities, and her direct supervisor, Maya Liepa. The allegations are outlined as follows:

1. Hostile Work Environment:
   • Steinberg alleges that from the beginning of her employment, she was subjected to a hostile work environment primarily created by her supervisor, Maya Liepa.
   • Steinberg claims that Liepa made numerous inappropriate comments about her appearance, gender, and sexual orientation, contributing to an environment that was both degrading and demeaning.
   • Specific incidents include alleged comments about Steinberg’s physical appearance, such as demands to “show everyone [her] ass” during business meetings and repeated inquiries about her weight.
   • Steinberg also alleges that Liepa frequently made offensive comments about her sexual orientation, including telling Steinberg that she “didn’t look gay” and repeatedly suggesting that she should have sex with men, despite knowing Steinberg is a lesbian.
2. Discrimination Based on Religion:
   • Steinberg, who is Jewish, alleges that she was subjected to antisemitic remarks by Liepa, who allegedly referred to a coworker as a “cheap Jew” and made other derogatory comments related to Jewish stereotypes.
   • When Steinberg expressed discomfort with these comments, she alleges that Liepa dismissed her concerns and continued the behavior, exacerbating the hostile work environment.
3. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender:
   • The plaintiff asserts that her sexual orientation and gender made her a target for discriminatory behavior. She alleges that Liepa’s actions were not isolated but part of a broader pattern of gender-based harassment and favoritism towards male employees.
   • Specific allegations include Liepa’s preference for male employees, whom she allegedly found “easier to work with” and “less emotional,” contrasting this with her harsher treatment of female employees, including Steinberg.
4. Retaliation:
   • Steinberg alleges that after she reported the hostile work environment and discrimination to Human Resources (HR), she faced retaliation from Liepa and other members of management.
   • The retaliation allegedly included false accusations about her job performance, verbal abuse, and an intensified hostile work environment, which Steinberg claims ultimately led to her constructive discharge.
5. Constructive Discharge:
   • Steinberg contends that the cumulative effect of the hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation made her working conditions so intolerable that she was forced to resign.
   • She alleges that her resignation was not voluntary but resulted from the defendants’ deliberate actions to make her employment unbearable.

B. Defendants’ Responses (if any):

As of the filing of the complaint, the defendants’ formal responses to Steinberg’s allegations have not been detailed in the document. Typically, defendants in such cases might deny the allegations, argue that the actions in question were not discriminatory or retaliatory, or assert that any adverse employment actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The defendants may also challenge the characterization of Steinberg’s resignation as a constructive discharge, potentially arguing that she voluntarily left her position.

C. Legal Claims Brought Forward:

Steinberg’s complaint brings forth several legal claims under different statutory frameworks:

1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
   • Claims for discrimination based on religion, gender (including sexual orientation), hostile work environment, and retaliation.
2. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866:
   • Claims for discrimination based on Jewish ethnicity and race, as well as claims related to hostile work environment and retaliation.
3. New York State Executive Law § 296 (NYSHRL):
   • Claims for discrimination based on religion, gender (including sexual orientation), hostile work environment, and retaliation under state law.
4. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 (NYCHRL):
   • Claims for discrimination based on religion, gender (including sexual orientation), hostile work environment, and retaliation under local city law.

III. Legal Analysis

A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

1. Religion Discrimination:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, among other protected characteristics. Under Title VII, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the business.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment because of her Jewish faith. Specifically, she contends that her supervisor, Maya Liepa, made antisemitic remarks, including referring to a coworker as a “cheap Jew” and making derogatory references to Jewish culture.
• When Steinberg raised concerns about these comments, she alleges that Liepa dismissed her complaints, calling her a “snowflake” and continuing to make offensive remarks. Steinberg argues that this behavior created a hostile work environment that was permeated with religious intolerance.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII, Steinberg must demonstrate that:
  1. She holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement.
  2. She informed her employer of the conflict.
  3. She was disciplined or faced adverse employment action for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.

Application:

• Based on the allegations, Steinberg may argue that her Jewish faith was a factor in the discriminatory treatment she experienced. The antisemitic remarks allegedly made by Liepa, if proven true, could serve as evidence of a hostile work environment rooted in religious discrimination.
• Steinberg’s supervisor’s dismissal of her complaints could be interpreted as a failure to accommodate her religious needs by not addressing and rectifying the hostile environment. This could establish a violation of Title VII’s provisions against religious discrimination.

2. Gender Discrimination (Including Sexual Orientation):

Title VII also prohibits discrimination based on sex, which the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, following the landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she faced discrimination based on her gender and sexual orientation. She contends that Liepa made numerous inappropriate comments about her appearance and sexual orientation, including remarks that Steinberg “didn’t look gay” and should not disclose her sexual orientation at work.
• Additionally, Steinberg alleges that Liepa expressed a preference for male employees, whom she described as “easier to work with” and “less emotional,” further contributing to a gender-based discriminatory environment.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII, Steinberg must demonstrate:
  1. She belongs to a protected class (in this case, based on her gender and sexual orientation).
  2. She was qualified for her position.
  3. She suffered an adverse employment action.
  4. The adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Application:

• The allegations of comments made by Liepa regarding Steinberg’s gender and sexual orientation could be used to support a claim of gender discrimination under Title VII. If Steinberg can show that these comments were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of discriminatory behavior, it may strengthen her case.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock expanded the interpretation of Title VII to include sexual orientation, meaning that the comments about Steinberg’s sexual orientation if proven, would constitute a violation of her rights under Title VII.

3. Hostile Work Environment:

Title VII prohibits the creation of a hostile work environment, which occurs when an employee is subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of their employment.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that the cumulative effect of the discriminatory comments and behaviors by her supervisor, including remarks about her religion, gender, and sexual orientation, created a hostile work environment. She contends that this environment was characterized by ongoing harassment and discriminatory treatment, making it difficult for her to perform her job.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, Steinberg must demonstrate that:
  1. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct.
  2. The conduct was based on her protected status (religion, gender, sexual orientation).
  3. The conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment.
  4. There is a basis for holding the employer liable (e.g., the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt corrective action).

Application:

• The allegations suggest that Steinberg’s experience was unwelcome and based on her protected status. If the court finds that the conduct was severe or pervasive, it could establish the existence of a hostile work environment under Title VII.
• The employer’s failure to address Steinberg’s complaints and take corrective action could potentially make the employer liable for the hostile work environment.

4. Retaliation:

Title VII also prohibits retaliation against an employee for engaging in protected activity, such as filing a complaint about discrimination or harassment.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that after she reported the discriminatory and harassing behavior to HR, she faced retaliation from Liepa and other members of management. This alleged retaliation included increased scrutiny of her work, false accusations about her job performance, and intensified harassment, which Steinberg contends ultimately led to her constructive discharge.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, Steinberg must show:
  1. She engaged in a protected activity (e.g., filing a discrimination complaint).
  2. She suffered an adverse employment action.
  3. A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Application:

• The timing of the alleged retaliation following Steinberg’s complaint to HR could suggest a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions. If Steinberg can prove that her complaints led to increased scrutiny and other retaliatory behaviors, she may have a strong claim under Title VII.

B. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866

1. History and Application of Section 1981:

Section 1981, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981, originated from Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This statute was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War primarily to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. Section 1981 ensures that all persons within the United States have the same right to make and enforce contracts, sue, be parties to legal proceedings, give evidence, and receive the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings as enjoyed by white citizens.

Key Provisions of Section 1981:

• Equal Rights: Section 1981 guarantees that all citizens have the right to make and enforce contracts, which includes the right to be free from racial discrimination in the workplace.
• Intentional Discrimination: Unlike Title VII, which covers intentional discrimination and disparate impact claims, Section 1981 applies only to intentional discrimination.
• Applicability: Section 1981 applies to both public and private acts of racial discrimination, including actions taken by state governments and private individuals.

2. Jewish Ethnicity Discrimination:

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment based on her Jewish ethnicity. She claims that her supervisor, Maya Liepa, made antisemitic remarks, including referring to a coworker as a “cheap Jew” and making derogatory comments about Jewish culture.
• Steinberg contends that these comments were part of a broader pattern of ethnic discrimination that contributed to a hostile work environment.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a prima facie case under Section 1981, Steinberg must demonstrate:
  1. She is a member of a racial or ethnic minority (in this case, based on her Jewish ethnicity).
  2. The defendants intentionally discriminated against her based on her ethnicity.
  3. The discrimination concerned an activity protected by Section 1981, such as the right to make and enforce contracts.

Application:

• While Section 1981 was initially designed to address racial discrimination, courts have recognized that it can also apply to ethnic discrimination. In Steinberg’s case, the alleged antisemitic remarks could be viewed as evidence of intentional discrimination based on her Jewish ethnicity.
• Suppose Steinberg can show that these remarks were part of a broader pattern of discriminatory treatment that affected her ability to perform her job or enjoy the benefits of her employment contract. In that case, she may have a viable claim under Section 1981.

3. Gender Discrimination (Including Sexual Orientation):

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she faced discrimination not only based on her ethnicity but also on her gender and sexual orientation. However, it is important to note that Section 1981 traditionally focuses on racial and ethnic discrimination and does not explicitly cover gender or sexual orientation discrimination.

Legal Standards:

• Section 1981 primarily addresses racial discrimination. While Title VII and other statutes address gender and sexual orientation discrimination, Section 1981 does not extend to these categories unless they intersect with race or ethnicity.

Application:

• Steinberg’s allegations of gender and sexual orientation discrimination would be more appropriately analyzed under Title VII and other relevant statutes, as Section 1981’s protections do not explicitly extend to these forms of discrimination. However, suppose Steinberg can demonstrate that the gender or sexual orientation discrimination she faced was intertwined with ethnic discrimination. In that case, she might argue for a broader interpretation of Section 1981, though this would be a more challenging legal argument.

4. Hostile Work Environment:

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that the cumulative effect of the antisemitic comments and discriminatory behaviors created a hostile work environment. She contends that this environment was so pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a hostile work environment claim under Section 1981, Steinberg must demonstrate that:
  1. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct based on her ethnicity.
  2. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment.
  3. There is a basis for holding the employer liable.

Application:

• If the court finds that the antisemitic remarks and other discriminatory actions were severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, Steinberg could potentially establish a claim under Section 1981. The key issue will be whether these actions were explicitly tied to her Jewish ethnicity and whether they significantly impacted her ability to work.

5. Retaliation:

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that after complaining about the hostile work environment and discrimination, she faced retaliation from her supervisor and other members of management. This retaliation allegedly included increased scrutiny, false accusations, and intensified harassment, which Steinberg claims led to her constructive discharge.

Legal Standards:

• Section 1981, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, extends to retaliation claims. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Section 1981, Steinberg must show:
  1. She engaged in a protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination.
  2. She suffered an adverse employment action.
  3. A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Application:

• If Steinberg can demonstrate that her complaints about ethnic discrimination led to retaliatory actions by her employer, she may have a strong retaliation claim under Section 1981. The challenge will be establishing a causal link between her complaints and the alleged adverse actions.

6. Impact of the Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Decision on Section 1981 Claims:

Consideration:

• While the Muldrow decision primarily impacts the interpretation of Title VII claims, its emphasis on the requirements for establishing a hostile work environment and retaliation could influence how courts view similar claims under Section 1981.
• Defendants could cite the Muldrow case to argue for a higher standard of proof for the hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Section 1981, especially in cases where the conduct is not overtly severe or pervasive.

C. New York State Executive Law § 296 (NYSHRL)

1. Religion Discrimination:

The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), codified in Executive Law § 296, offers broader protections against discrimination than federal law. Under NYSHRL, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on religion, among other protected characteristics. This statute is particularly notable for its broader interpretation of discrimination, which can make it easier for plaintiffs to prove their claims compared to federal standards.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment because of her Jewish faith, with her supervisor, Maya Liepa, making antisemitic remarks. These remarks allegedly included references to a coworker as a “cheap Jew” and other derogatory comments related to Jewish culture.
• When Steinberg objected to these comments, she alleges that Liepa dismissed her concerns, exacerbating the hostile work environment. Steinberg argues that the persistence of these comments contributed significantly to the hostile and discriminatory atmosphere at work.

Legal Standards:

• Under NYSHRL, to establish a claim of religious discrimination, Steinberg must demonstrate:
  1. She is a member of a protected class based on her religion.
  2. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her religion.
  3. Her religion motivated her conduct, which created a hostile work environment or led to adverse employment action.
  4. There is a basis for holding the employer liable.

Application:

• The NYSHRL provides broader protections than Title VII, particularly its lower threshold for establishing a hostile work environment. Steinberg’s allegations, if proven, could establish that the antisemitic comments and dismissal of her complaints by her supervisor created a work environment hostile to her based on her religion.
• The NYSHRL’s broader interpretation may make it easier for Steinberg to prove that the conduct she experienced was discriminatory, especially when the employer failed to take adequate corrective action after she reported the offensive behavior.

2. Gender Discrimination (Including Sexual Orientation):

NYSHRL explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender, which includes sexual orientation. The law has long been interpreted to provide strong protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring they are protected from discrimination in the workplace.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she was subjected to discrimination based on her gender and sexual orientation. She contends that her supervisor, Maya Liepa, made numerous inappropriate comments about her appearance and sexual orientation, including remarks that Steinberg “didn’t look gay” and should not disclose her sexual orientation at work.
• Additionally, Steinberg alleges that Liepa expressed a preference for male employees, contributing to a gender-based discriminatory environment.

Legal Standards:

• Under NYSHRL, to establish a claim of gender discrimination, including sexual orientation, Steinberg must show:
  1. She belongs to a protected class (gender and sexual orientation).
  2. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct based on her protected class.
  3. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment or result in an adverse employment action.
  4. There is a basis for holding the employer liable.

Application:

• Steinberg’s allegations of discriminatory remarks regarding her gender and sexual orientation could be actionable under NYSHRL. The explicit protection for sexual orientation under NYSHRL, combined with its broader interpretation of what constitutes a hostile work environment, may bolster Steinberg’s claims.
• If Steinberg can demonstrate that these comments were not isolated but part of a broader pattern of discriminatory behavior, her case under NYSHRL could be particularly strong.

3. Hostile Work Environment:

The NYSHRL offers significant protections against hostile work environments, often interpreted more broadly than under federal law. Under this statute, a hostile work environment is created when an employee is subjected to unwelcome, severe, or pervasive conduct based on a protected characteristic.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that the cumulative effect of discriminatory comments and behaviors by her supervisor, including remarks about her religion, gender, and sexual orientation, created a hostile work environment. She contends that this environment was characterized by ongoing harassment and discriminatory treatment, making it difficult for her to perform her job.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a hostile work environment claim under NYSHRL, Steinberg must show:
  1. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct.
  2. The conduct was based on her protected status (religion, gender, sexual orientation).
  3. The conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment.
  4. There is a basis for holding the employer liable.

Application:

• The allegations suggest that Steinberg experienced ongoing, unwelcome conduct that was based on her religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Given NYSHRL’s broader interpretation, Steinberg’s case may focus on demonstrating that this conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile work environment.
• The failure of the employer to address her complaints could further strengthen Steinberg’s claim under NYSHRL.

4. Retaliation:

NYSHRL also includes robust provisions against retaliation, making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in a related investigation or proceeding.

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that after she reported the discriminatory and harassing behavior to HR, she faced retaliation from Liepa and other members of management. This alleged retaliation included increased scrutiny of her work, false accusations about her job performance, and intensified harassment, which Steinberg contends ultimately led to her constructive discharge.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under NYSHRL, Steinberg must demonstrate:
  1. She engaged in a protected activity (e.g., reporting discrimination or harassment).
  2. She suffered an adverse employment action.
  3. A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Application:

• Steinberg’s allegations of retaliation, if supported by evidence, could establish a violation of NYSHRL’s anti-retaliation provisions. The timing of the retaliatory actions following her complaints to HR could suggest a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse actions.
• The broader protections under NYSHRL may make it easier for Steinberg to prove that the actions taken against her were retaliatory, particularly if she can show a pattern of adverse actions that followed her reports of discrimination.

D. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 (NYCHRL)

The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), codified in Administrative Code § 8-107, is one of the most expansive anti-discrimination laws in the country. It provides broader protections than Title VII and the NYSHRL, focusing on ensuring that any discriminatory practices, no matter how minor, are addressed. The law mandates a liberal interpretation to maximize the protection afforded to individuals under the law.

1. Religion Discrimination:

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she was subjected to religious discrimination based on her Jewish faith. She claims that her supervisor, Maya Liepa, made antisemitic remarks, including referring to a coworker as a “cheap Jew” and making other derogatory references to Jewish culture.
• Steinberg further alleges that when she objected to these remarks, Liepa dismissed her concerns and continued with the offensive behavior, contributing to a hostile work environment.

Legal Standards:

• Under NYCHRL, Steinberg must demonstrate that she was treated less well than other employees because of her religion to establish a religious discrimination claim. The NYCHRL does not require that the discrimination be severe or pervasive; rather, any differential treatment based on religion can be sufficient to establish a violation.

Application:

• Given the broader scope of the NYCHRL, Steinberg’s allegations of antisemitic comments, even if considered minor or isolated under federal or state law, could still constitute a violation. The NYCHRL’s emphasis on even minor discriminatory acts allows Steinberg to argue that her treatment was unlawful, regardless of whether it created a significantly hostile work environment.
• Steinberg’s supervisor’s dismissal of her concerns may also be seen as a failure to address discrimination, further strengthening her claim under the NYCHRL.

2. Gender Discrimination (Including Sexual Orientation):

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that she faced discrimination based on her gender and sexual orientation. She claims that her supervisor, Maya Liepa, made inappropriate comments about her appearance and sexual orientation, including remarks that Steinberg “didn’t look gay” and should not disclose her sexual orientation at work.
• Additionally, Steinberg alleges that Liepa expressed a preference for male employees, whom she described as “easier to work with” and “less emotional,” contributing to a gender-based discriminatory environment.

Legal Standards:

• To establish a claim of gender discrimination under NYCHRL, Steinberg must show that she was treated less well than other employees because of her gender or sexual orientation. The NYCHRL’s protections against gender and sexual orientation discrimination are expansive, covering even slight differences in treatment based on these characteristics.

Application:

• The allegations of discriminatory remarks regarding Steinberg’s gender and sexual orientation are likely sufficient to establish a claim under NYCHRL. Unlike federal or state laws, which might require a pattern of severe or pervasive conduct, the NYCHRL allows for claims based on any differential treatment, making Steinberg’s case particularly strong under this law.
• The preference for male employees, as alleged by Steinberg, could also be viewed as a violation of the NYCHRL, further supporting her claim of gender discrimination.

3. Hostile Work Environment:

Allegations:

• Steinberg contends that the cumulative effect of the discriminatory comments and behaviors created a hostile work environment. She alleges that her supervisor’s actions were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of harassment based on her religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

Legal Standards:

• Under NYCHRL, a hostile work environment claim does not require the conduct to be severe or pervasive. Instead, Steinberg must show that she was treated less well than other employees because of her protected characteristics, such as religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Application:

• The NYCHRL’s broader standard for hostile work environment claims makes it easier for Steinberg to succeed. If she can demonstrate that she was treated less well than others due to her religion, gender, or sexual orientation, even if the conduct was not severe, it could be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL.
• The ongoing nature of the alleged discriminatory comments could further bolster her claim, as it suggests a persistent and pervasive issue rather than isolated incidents.

4. Retaliation:

Allegations:

• Steinberg alleges that after she reported the discriminatory and harassing behavior to HR, she faced retaliation. This included increased scrutiny, false accusations about her job performance, and intensified harassment, which she contends led to her constructive discharge.

Legal Standards:

• The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices. The law’s anti-retaliation provisions cover any action that might discourage a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity, such as filing a complaint.

Application:

• If proven, Steinberg’s allegations of retaliation could constitute a violation of NYCHRL’s expansive protections. The law’s broad interpretation means that any adverse action taken against Steinberg after her complaint, even if minor, could be considered retaliatory.
• The NYCHRL’s focus on protecting employees from even slight retaliatory actions makes Steinberg’s case particularly compelling, especially if she can demonstrate a clear link between her complaints and the adverse actions taken against her.

IV. Constructive Discharge

Legal Definition and Standards:

Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns due to working conditions that have become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign. Under the law, constructive discharge is treated as a form of wrongful termination, where the resignation is deemed involuntary because the employer has created or allowed intolerable working conditions.

To establish a claim of constructive discharge, an employee typically must show:

1. Intolerable Conditions: The working conditions were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign.
2. Intent or Foreseeability: The employer’s actions that led to these intolerable conditions were intended to force the employee to resign or were so egregious that the employer could foresee the employee being compelled to resign.
3. Timing: The employee resigned in response to the intolerable conditions rather than for unrelated reasons.

Allegations:

Steinberg alleges that the cumulative effect of the hostile work environment, discriminatory behavior, and retaliatory actions created working conditions that were so intolerable that she had no choice but to resign. She contends that her resignation was not voluntary but resulted from the defendants’ deliberate actions to make her employment unbearable.

Specifically, Steinberg points to the following as evidence of constructive discharge:

• Hostile Work Environment: Steinberg claims that the pervasive and ongoing discriminatory remarks and behaviors by her supervisor, Maya Liepa, created a toxic work environment. These alleged actions included antisemitic comments, gender-based discrimination, and inappropriate remarks about her sexual orientation.
• Retaliation: After Steinberg reported the discriminatory behavior to HR, she alleges that her retaliation made her working conditions even more intolerable. This retaliation included increased scrutiny of her work, false accusations about her job performance, and continued harassment.
• Lack of Response to Complaints: Steinberg alleges that despite her complaints to HR, no meaningful action was taken to address the hostile work environment or the retaliation she faced. This lack of response further contributed to the intolerability of her working conditions.

Legal Analysis:

1. Intolerable Conditions:
   • The alleged actions by Steinberg’s supervisor, including ongoing discriminatory remarks and retaliatory behavior, could be viewed as creating an intolerable work environment. If proven, these conditions might be considered sufficiently severe to justify a reasonable person in Steinberg’s position feeling compelled to resign.
2. Employer’s Intent or Foreseeability:
   • To establish constructive discharge, Steinberg must demonstrate that the defendants either intended to force her resignation or that the working conditions were so egregious that resignation was a foreseeable outcome. The alleged dismissal of Steinberg’s complaints by HR and the continuation of discriminatory and retaliatory behavior could be used to argue that the employer either intended to force her resignation or should have foreseen that their actions would lead to it.
3. Timing of Resignation:
   • Steinberg resigned shortly after reporting the hostile work environment and faced subsequent retaliation. The timing of her resignation, concerning the worsening of her working conditions, supports her claim that she resigned due to the intolerable environment rather than for unrelated reasons.

Application Under Different Laws:

• Title VII and NYSHRL:
  • Under Title VII and NYSHRL, a successful constructive discharge claim would allow Steinberg to pursue remedies typically available in wrongful termination cases, such as back pay, front pay, and reinstatement.
  • Both statutes recognize constructive discharge as an adverse employment action, which could strengthen Steinberg’s discrimination and retaliation claims if the court finds that her resignation was a constructive discharge.
• NYCHRL:
  • The NYCHRL, with its broader protections, might be more favorable to Steinberg in establishing constructive discharge. The law’s focus on even minor discriminatory acts means that Steinberg could argue that the cumulative effect of the hostile work environment and retaliation was sufficient to compel her resignation.
  • A finding of constructive discharge under NYCHRL would support Steinberg’s claims of discrimination and retaliation, potentially allowing for broader remedies than under federal or state law.

V. What to Do If Facing Similar Legal Issues

Steps to Take:

For individuals who believe they are facing similar legal issues to those alleged by Ahouva Steinberg—such as discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation in the workplace—there are several important steps to consider:

1. Document Everything:
   • Record Incidents: Keep detailed records of all incidents of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. This includes dates, times, locations, people involved, and the specific nature of the behavior.
   • Save Evidence: Retain copies of any relevant emails, text messages, voicemails, or other communications that may support your claims.
   • Witness Statements: If possible, obtain statements from colleagues who witnessed the discriminatory or retaliatory behavior.
2. Report the Issues Internally:
   • Follow Company Policy: Report the behavior according to your employer’s established procedures. This typically involves notifying HR or a designated manager.
   • Written Complaints: Whenever possible, write complaints and keep copies of all correspondence. Written documentation can serve as evidence if your case proceeds to litigation.
   • Follow-up: If your complaints are not addressed, follow up in writing to create a record of your attempts to resolve the issue internally.
3. Understand Your Rights:
   • Know the Law: Familiarize yourself with the relevant federal, state, and local laws that protect against workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. This includes Title VII, Section 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.
   • Consult Resources: To understand your rights and options, utilize resources from organizations such as the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the New York State Division of Human Rights, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
4. Seek Legal Counsel:
   • Consult an Attorney: Consult an employment attorney specializing in discrimination and retaliation cases. An attorney can help you assess the strength of your case, navigate the legal process, and determine the best course of action.
   • Early Intervention: Engaging an attorney early can help you take the necessary steps to protect your rights and preserve your legal claims.
5. Filing a Formal Complaint:
   • EEOC Complaint: If your employer does not address your concerns internally, you may need to file a formal complaint with the EEOC. This step is required before bringing specific federal claims, such as those under Title VII.
   • State and Local Agencies: Depending on your location, you may file complaints with state or local agencies, such as the New York State Division of Human Rights or the New York City Commission on Human Rights, which may offer additional protections.
6. Consider Potential Remedies:
   • Compensation: If your case is successful, you may be entitled to various forms of compensation, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and possibly punitive damages.
   • Reinstatement: In some cases, reinstatement to your former position may be an option, particularly if you were wrongfully terminated or constructively discharged.
   • Policy Changes: You may also seek to have your employer implement policy changes to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.

Legal Remedies:

Depending on the outcome of your case, several remedies may be available to you under the different legal frameworks:

1. Title VII Remedies:
   • Back Pay: Compensation for lost wages from the discriminatory action to the time of judgment.
   • Front Pay: Compensation for future lost wages if reinstatement is not feasible.
   • Compensatory Damages: For emotional distress, pain, suffering, and other non-economic losses.
   • Punitive Damages: In cases where the employer’s conduct was particularly egregious.
   • Injunctive Relief: Court orders require the employer to take or refrain from specific actions, such as reinstatement or policy changes.
2. Section 1981 Remedies:
   • Monetary Damages: Including compensatory and punitive damages for intentional racial or ethnic discrimination.
   • Attorney’s Fees: Reimbursement for legal costs incurred in pursuing the claim.
   • Full and Equal Benefits: Ensuring all citizens enjoy the same legal protections as white citizens, particularly in contract enforcement.
3. NYSHRL Remedies:
   • Broad Relief: Similar to Title VII, including compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, and front pay.
   • Civil Penalties: In some cases, the employer may be required to pay civil penalties for violations of the NYSHRL.
4. NYCHRL Remedies:
   • Expansive Remedies: Given its broad protections, the NYCHRL allows for a wide range of remedies, including damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
   • Policy Changes: The NYCHRL emphasizes corrective action, so remedies may also include mandatory changes to company policies or practices to prevent future discrimination.

VI. Conclusion

Summary of Key Points:

The case of Ahouva Steinberg v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., et al. highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding employment discrimination, hostile work environments, and retaliation. Steinberg’s allegations, if proven, illustrate how pervasive and ongoing discriminatory practices can significantly impact an employee’s ability to work, ultimately leading to constructive discharge.

The legal analysis covered in this commentary has explored the various claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

1. Title VII: Steinberg’s claims under Title VII focus on discrimination based on religion, gender (including sexual orientation), the creation of a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Title VII provides a robust framework for addressing these issues, though it requires proof of severe or pervasive conduct.
2. Section 1981: This section, originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, focuses on racial and ethnic discrimination in contract enforcement. Steinberg’s claims under Section 1981 are grounded in alleged antisemitic behavior, which could constitute ethnic discrimination. While Section 1981 does not explicitly cover gender or sexual orientation, its application to racial and ethnic discrimination remains powerful.
3. NYSHRL: The New York State Human Rights Law offers broader protections than Title VII, particularly regarding the threshold for proving a hostile work environment. Steinberg’s claims under NYSHRL may benefit from the law’s more expansive view of what constitutes discrimination and retaliation.
4. NYCHRL: The New York City Human Rights Law provides the broadest protections, emphasizing minor discriminatory acts. Under NYCHRL, Steinberg’s claims are likely to be particularly strong, given the law’s lower threshold for establishing discrimination and its focus on protecting individuals from any differential treatment based on protected characteristics.

Impact of the Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Decision:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis clarified the standard for proving discrimination under Title VII in cases involving job transfers and other employment actions that do not include changes in pay, rank, or official duties. The Court ruled that while plaintiffs must show that a transfer or similar action resulted in some harm, they do not need to demonstrate that the harm was “significant” or “materially adverse.” This ruling effectively lowers the bar for proving discrimination in cases where the adverse impact is less tangible but still harmful. The potential impact of the Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision on Steinberg’s claims, particularly under Title VII and Section 1981, cannot be overlooked. The Muldrow case may influence how courts interpret hostile work environments and retaliation claims, potentially requiring less stringent proof of severe or pervasive conduct. However, under the broader NYSHRL and NYCHRL, Steinberg’s claims are less likely to be affected by Muldrow, as these laws provide more expansive protections.

Call to Action:

If you or someone you know is facing workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, it is crucial to take action. Contact legal professionals specializing in labor and employment law to explore your options. Stay informed about your rights and the legal protections available to you. Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube for updates on employment law and other legal matters. Visit our website at The Sanders Firm, P.C., for more information and to sign up for our newsletter. Together, we can work towards creating safer and more equitable workplaces for everyone.

Read the Federal Complaint