Cardwell V. Davis Polk And Wardwell Llp Et Al

Case Background

On November 04, 2019, Kaloma Cardwell (“Plaintiff”), a former associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (“Davis Polk” or the “Firm”), filed an employment discrimination and termination lawsuit alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and other unlawful acts. The Defendants named in the suit include the Firm itself and several individuals associated with its management and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) group: Thomas Reid, John Bick, William Chudd, Harold Birnbaum, Daniel Brass, Brian Wolfe, and John H. Butler (collectively referred to as the “Management and M&A Defendants”). Cardwell also implicated Sophia Hudson and the aforementioned individuals as the “Individual Defendants.” Together, Davis Polk and the Individual Defendants constitute the “Defendants.”

The case was filed in the United States District Court, New York Southern (Foley Square). The case was assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods and referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for settlement. [Case number: 1:19cv10256]

Cause

Kaloma Cardwell worked as an associate at the Firm from September 2014 to August 2018. During his tenure, he experienced discriminatory treatment stemming from the Defendants’ actions. First, the Defendants subjected him to the Firm’s discriminatory performance review policies. Second, they treated him differently compared to similarly situated associates who either refrained from lodging discrimination complaints or were White or non-Black. Third, they ignored his complaints regarding racial disparities and unequal treatment. Fourth, they manipulated workplace systems and policies, restricting his professional growth by assigning him fewer deals and projects. Fifth, they altered performance reviews and related processes to disadvantage him. Sixth, they effectively cut off communication, depriving him of mentorship opportunities. Lastly, they reduced his billable hours significantly between September 2016 and April 2017, leaving him with nearly no billable work for four consecutive months.

When Mr. Cardwell reported this conduct, the Defendants retaliated in several ways. They threatened his career, falsified his performance reviews, and distorted internal communications to misrepresent his job performance. Additionally, they further manipulated workplace policies, reduced his billable hours, and eventually terminated his employment.

On August 3, 2017, Mr. Cardwell filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter on August 6, 2019. Subsequently, on November 4, 2019, Mr. Cardwell filed a lawsuit in federal court based on the Right to Sue letter.

Damages

As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, including the termination of Mr. Cardwell’s employment by Davis Polk, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bick, Mr. Birnbaum, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Chudd, and Mr. Butler, Mr. Cardwell has suffered significant harm. This harm includes substantial financial losses, lost professional opportunities, diminished career prospects, and damage to his reputation. He has also endured humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish.

The Defendants intentionally discriminated against Mr. Cardwell with malice or reckless disregard for his rights, warranting punitive damages. The discrimination and retaliation he faced caused substantial damage, including lost career opportunities, emotional suffering, and ongoing distress.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Kaloma Cardwell
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David Jeffries
  • Defendant(s): Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP | Thomas Reid | John Bick | William Chudd | Sophia Hudson | Harold Birnbaum | Daniel Brass | Brian Wolfe | John H. Butler
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Bruce Birenboim | Jeh Charles Johnson | Susanna Michele Buergel | Alison Rebecca Gross Benedon | Kerissa Barron | Martha Lea Goodman

Claims

Mr. Cardwell brought forward claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He alleged that Davis Polk and individual defendants discriminated against him based on race and retaliated against him for opposing unlawful practices in his workplace.

The discriminatory actions included altering his work conditions, undermining his professional opportunities, and impairing his reputation. Retaliatory measures involved manipulating performance reviews, restricting his billable hours, and ultimately terminating his employment. These acts caused significant financial losses for Mr. Cardwell, such as lost salary, bonuses, and career opportunities. He also endured emotional distress, psychological trauma, and associated physical symptoms.

Mr. Cardwell contended that the Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to his rights. He sought punitive damages for their intentional and negligent conduct.

Defense

In their defense, the Defendants presented several arguments and affirmative defenses.

First, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim warranting relief or damages under the law. They asserted that claims based on actions not included in administrative charges or against unnamed parties were invalid due to unfulfilled procedural requirements, including exhaustion of administrative remedies. Additionally, claims were barred by statutes of limitations or the failure to file timely administrative charges.

The Defendants contended that damages sought were either constitutionally prohibited or not recoverable under relevant federal, state, or local laws. They also argued that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and did not engage in protected activities. Claims were further disputed on grounds that alleged actions did not constitute material adverse changes or amounted only to trivial inconveniences.

Defendants maintained that all employment actions stemmed from legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to race or any protected category. They denied the existence of discriminatory animus, retaliation, unfavorable treatment compared to peers, or participation by individual Defendants in the alleged actions. They further rejected the claims of aiding and abetting violations, asserting no underlying violations occurred.

Finally, the Defendants argued that the claims lacked causal connection to protected activities, were unsupported by evidence of retaliation, and failed to demonstrate proximate causation for alleged injuries. They challenged the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, emphasizing their lawful and good-faith actions. The Plaintiff’s claims, they concluded, were speculative and without factual basis.

Jury Verdict

On January 29, 2024, the jury returned a defense verdict after finding in favor of the Defendant on the claims of retaliation under section 1981, NYSHRL, Title VII, NYCHRL. The jury found that Plaintiff was not entitled to compensatory or nominal damages.

Court Documents:

Available upon request