Kamrass v. Jeffries LLC
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | 17 Civ. 7465 (GBD) |
| Parties | CHRISTINE MCGRATH KAMRASS, Plaintiff, v. JEFFRIES LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Christine McGrath Kamrass brings this employment discrimination action against Defendants Jeffries, LLC, Jeffries & Company Inc., Jeffries Investments, LLC,1 and John Laub, alleging violations of the Ohio Fair Employment Act, Ohio R.C. 4112.01 et seq. (the "Ohio Act"), Ohio public policy through wrongful discipline, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). Plaintiff principally claims that from the time Defendant Laub was hired, Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her age and sex by (1) restricting her opportunities to develop business, (2) hiring a younger, male employee to cover the same region as her, and (3) unfairly compensating her. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. (Notice of Mot. for Summ. J, ECF No. 90.) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff's Ohio public policy claim, Ohio Act age discrimination claims, ADEA claims, and retaliation claims are dismissed.
Jeffries is a global investment banking firm headquartered in New York that provides institutional clients with capital markets, research, and financial advisory and execution services. Salespeople in Jeffries' Prime Brokerage unit are responsible for sourcing and introducing institutional clients and hedge funds to Jeffries' Prime Brokerage platform and maintaining those client relationships once they are onboarded at Jeffries. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff has worked in Jeffries' Prime Brokerage Sales unit as a Senior Vice President since 2006. (Id. ¶ 13.) She was hired at the age of 39 by Defendant Laub's predecessor, who was then Head of Prime Brokerage Services. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16.) Plaintiff alleges that she began experiencing discrimination when Laub joined Jeffries in July 2014. Her allegations can be divided into three categories of purportedly adverse employment actions.
Plaintiff claims that she was excluded from sales and marketing opportunities.2 Indeed, Plaintiff was not permitted to attend or had to justify her presence at multiple client, professional development, or networking events. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 ( ), ECF No. 101, ¶¶ 166-169.) On at least one occasion, Plaintiff was not permitted to attend a conference in Florida that all of her male colleagues attended. (Id. ¶ 168.) On another occasion, Plaintiff was asked to justifyher presence at an industry conference, but contends that her male colleagues were all included without additional inquiry.3 (Id. ¶ 169.) Plaintiff claims that attending such events is critical to business development. (Id. ¶ 170.) Defendants concede that Plaintiff did not attend certain conferences. However, they dispute whether Plaintiff was subject to disparate treatment and maintain that Plaintiff's exclusion from any such events was not inappropriate. (Id. ¶¶ 166-169.)
Plaintiff also claims that her geographic market was limited and requests to expand her territory were denied. Plaintiff was hired, in part, to provide coverage for the Midwest, but under Laub's predecessor, she was permitted to pursue business opportunities in any geographic territory she chose. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 14, 17.) In contrast, under Laub, Plaintiff was to focus on the Midwest. (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff made repeated requests to expand her territory, including following her 2016 annual review. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 177.) In response, Plaintiff was asked to justify her request. (Id.) Plaintiff testified that her male colleagues were not subject to any such requirement, though Defendants dispute this claim. (Id.) Plaintiff also asked to cover Texas, after her colleague who had covered that state resigned. (Id. ¶ 178.) Laub, however, rejected her request. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that Defendants' efforts to restrict her opportunities to develop business were furthered by Jeffries' hiring of Craig Cohen as a Senior Vice President in the Prime Brokerage Sales unit in late 2016. Laub communicated to Plaintiff and others that Cohen, age 39, was hired to cover the Southwest, Midwest, and Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 194, 200; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 70, 111.) Plaintiff claims that Cohen was hired as her future replacement. Defendants do not dispute that around this time, Defendants were contemplating firing Plaintiff. (Defs.' Rule 56.1Counterstatement ¶ 189.) Moreover, in deposition testimony, Laub conceded that the Midwest did not require two full-time salespeople and admitted that Cohen could have been a replacement for Plaintiff in the future. (Id. ¶ 206.) According to Laub, however, Cohen was hired because of an opening in Texas, which had been covered by a salesperson who resigned in September 2016. (Id.; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 70.) Defendants also hoped that Cohen would increase sales in the Midwest. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 196, 206.) Other internal communication between senior management, however, indicated that Cohen would be "an upgrade/replace for current Midwest coverage." (Id. ¶ 203.)
Dual coverage of the Midwest by Cohen and Plaintiff did not proceed cooperatively, as Plaintiff and Cohen had multiple disputes over clients or prospects in the region. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 72, 75.) In resolving disputes over prospective clients, Jeffries sometimes directed leads to Cohen and, at other times, decided in Plaintiff's favor. (Id. ¶ 77; Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 221.) Plaintiff, however, contends that the division of prospects was unbalanced and there was a consistent pattern of Jeffries directing such leads to Cohen instead of Plaintiff. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 77.) Cohen also actively solicited a number of Plaintiff's clients, including her most lucrative client, and attempted to wrest control of those relationships from Plaintiff. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 223-225, 227-233.) Despite Cohen's efforts, however, Plaintiff does not identify any instance of Defendants transitioning an existing client from Plaintiff to Cohen.
Plaintiff alleges that Cohen was never disciplined for these actions. (Id. ¶ 236.) Defendants admit that Cohen was not formally disciplined, but Plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Barsam Lakani, indicated that he had corrected Cohen on certain occasions. (Id.) Moreover, to address the ongoing conflict between Plaintiff and Cohen, in August 2017, Lakani issued regionalguidelines for Prime Brokerage salespeople. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 79.) Under the guidelines, each salesperson would cover a specific region or state and could approach a prospect outside of his or her region only for a compelling reason (e.g., an existing relationship or a personal connection with the prospect). (Id.) Lakani believed such guidelines would promote efficiency and enhance the client experience by reducing the possibility that multiple salespeople might be communicating with the same prospect. (Id. ¶ 80.) Under the guidelines, Plaintiff and Cohen continued to share the Midwest region. (Id. ¶ 82.) Plaintiff was also assigned Colorado (Denver), Georgia, and Florida, while Cohen was assigned Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. (Id. ¶¶ 83-84.) Since then, Plaintiff has also started covering Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 87.)
A year later, in September 2018, Cohen voluntarily resigned from Jeffries for a number of reasons, including, inter alia, his relationship with Plaintiff, the fact that the Midwest market was too small for coverage by two salespeople, and his compensation, in particular the fact that he did not receive a year-end bonus in 2017. (Id. ¶ 98; Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 257.) Further, Cohen believed that Jeffries gave Plaintiff significantly more business opportunities than were given to him. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 100.) Since Cohen's resignation, Plaintiff has independently covered the Midwest and continues to cover Colorado, Georgia, Florida, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 101.)
Plaintiff contends that Defendants unfairly compensated her because of her age and gender. During Plaintiff's employment at Jeffries, her base salary has never been reduced and she has never been demoted. (Id. ¶¶ 122-123.) What has fluctuated is her annual discretionary bonus. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's bonuses were the appropriate result of several factors, includingher performance and geographical region.
Plaintiff had a history of positive performance reviews prior to Defendant Laub's hiring in 2014. In 2011, she received an annual performance rating of "above average." (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 135.) Plaintiff's year-end review was positive, as her supervisor remarked that she had "done a great job supporting the Midwest" and highlighted the revenue growth she had achieved. (Id. ¶ 134.) That year, Plaintiff received a salary of $300,000 and a discretionary bonus of $33,750. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶ 24.) In January 2012, Plaintiff and several other Prime Brokerage salespeople were considering leaving Jeffries. (Id. ¶ 22.) As an incentive to stay and keep the sales team together, Jeffries offered Plaintiff an employment agreement under...
To continue reading
Request your trial