Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—D.N.J.: Sales director advances claim that 'old boy's club' led to promotion denial, unequal pay, (Apr 14, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

HR members and other female employees corroborated her claims relating to the "old boy's club" environment and the disparate requirements between men and women at the company.

A female sales director will get a trial on her claims of sex discrimination under Title VII and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination alleging she was denied promotion to a VP role and paid less than her male VP supervisor despite performing similar work due the employer's "old boy's club," in which women needed to demonstrate higher degrees of competency than men to obtain recognition and advancement. In an unpublished decision denying the employer's bid for summary judgment, a federal district court in New Jersey also found that triable issues existed as to whether her supervisor raised her quota, cut her pay on deals, and placed more burdensome job duties upon her in retaliation for her repeated complaints to HR (Jessen v. Model N, Inc., No. 23-919 (KMW-EAP) (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2025, unpublished)).

New sales leader. The employee worked for the employer as an individual sales contributor from 2011 through 2014. In February 2017, she returned to the same role. In April 2019, the company named a new chief revenue officer (CRO) whose duties included supervising all sales teams.

Reports to new male VP. In late 2019, three new sales VPs were hired, one of whom was a male who supervised the employee's team. She claimed the CRO had previously been "whispering" to her that she would be promoted to VP and was surprised when she was overlooked. After she began reporting to the new male VP, she began having discussions with him about her desire to attain leadership opportunities.

"Promotion." In November 2020, the CRO promoted her to the position of regional sales director (RSD). She claimed her new role included more burdensome assignments, such as supervising individuals who were less experienced and had HR and performance issues, and handling "filter accounts" that no one wanted. She also claimed she knew the accounts and underlying business better than the male VP.

Complains about "old boy's club." She complained to HR that she believed her move to RSD instead of VP was due to the "old boy's club" environment which required women to demonstrate higher degrees of competency than men to obtain recognition and advancement. Afterwards, she was allegedly excluded from meetings regarding her accounts, her reviews became a "gauntlet" of critique and questioning, and her pay for deals were cut.

Same work as higher position. She also claimed that, as RSD, she performed substantively the same work as VPs but at lower pay. In 2021 she was paid a base salary of $180,000 with a sales quota of $4,712,500 while the VP was paid a base salary of $250,000 with a sales quota of $8,750,000. Notably, her quota "rolled up" into the VP's quota. Though the employer claimed she was not promoted to VP due to her lack of "leadership experience," she claimed that the qualifications for the VP role were not defined until after she made her desire for a promotion known.

Resigns. In February 2022, she notified the employer that she was resigning. When HR reached out to the CRO to determine if the company would offer her the VP role in an attempt to retain her, he did not respond. He testified that he lacked the authority to promote her at any time and that promotions were made twice a year in the April/May and November/December timeframes. She ultimately left to take the role of area VP at a different company.

Qualified. The court first rejected the employer's contention that summary judgment was warranted as to her sex discrimination claims since she could not make her prima facie showing that she was qualified for the VP role. Notably, although the employer asserted that she did not have enough "leadership experience," it did not outline any specific qualifiers for that position until a year after she made her desire for her promotion known. Furthermore, another VP believed she was sufficiently qualified because she held a leadership role at a previous job and had expertise in the industry. She also claimed she was essentially performing a VP role as an RSD and was considered as performing "very well as the leader of the team" despite having to work with difficult people and undesirable accounts.

Adverse action. She also presented sufficient evidence that she suffered continuing adverse employment actions. First, the record suggested she was paid less for taking on more responsibility as an RSD, not only in relation to the other VP's but also as to individual contributors. Moreover, the record suggested that promoting her was a continuing possibility since a HR representative testified that she sought the CRO's approval to offer her the promotion in an attempt to retain her after she submitted her resignation.

Inference of bias. A reasonable jury could also infer sex discrimination. In particular, she presented evidence that a female VP had resigned from the company in July 2021, citing the way women were treated. At least two other female staff members testified that during a business group call several men were given special T-shirts (that were later given to everyone after HR received a complaint). Also, at least one HR representative who received complaints that there was an "old boys club" environment and noticed that women were held to higher standards.

Pretext. She also presented sufficient evidence of pretext. While the employer claimed she was not promoted due to her lack of "leadership experience," the court noted the "curious timing of the development of 'standards' for promotion to a VP position, developed a year after her push for leadership experience." The court also noted that testimony from both HR members and other female employees about the "old boy's club" and disparate requirements between men and women at the company.

Retaliation. The employee also survived summary judgment on her retaliation claim. First, she engaged in protected activity by complaining to several HR members that she felt her career was not advancing because she was a woman. She also repeatedly complained that she had received lower pay on deals and burdensome job duties in retaliation for having complained about the discriminatory failure to promote and unequal pay. Further, after her year-long efforts to be promoted, the VP told her that she would not be promoted and that her quota would, in fact, increase making it even more difficult to achieve the "successful sales team" that the employer allegedly sought.

The case is No. 23-919 (KMW-EAP).

Judge: Williams, K.

Attorneys: Caren Nancy Gurmankin (Console Mattiacci Law) for Cheryl Jessen. Andrea Meryl Kirshenbaum (Littler Mendelson) for Model N, Inc.

Companies: Model N, Inc.

Cases: SexDiscrimination PayDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation NewJerseyNews