Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—2d. Cir.: Former Louis Vuitton counsel’s refusal to meet with supervisor to discuss settlement was protected activity, (Sep 22, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“If initiating a claim constitutes an assertion that the plaintiff was wronged, refusing to end a pursuit of that same claim with a settlement can—depending on the context—constitute a continuation of the same assertion.”

Vacating in part a district court’s dismissal of the retaliation claims asserted by former legal counsel for LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. (LVMH), the Second Circuit determined that her refusal to meet with a supervisor to discuss settling her sexual harassment claims that were pending in arbitration constituted protected activity. Further, her subsequent termination under such circumstances gave rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. However, it did affirm the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint, finding that the claims she had sought to add accrued prior to the effective date of the EFAA and did not reaccrue thereafter as part of a continuing violation, rendering the statute inapplicable (Newton v. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., No. 25-1697-cv (2d. Cir. Sept. 21, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case is an attorney who began working for LVMH as litigation counsel in 2015. She was later promoted to vice president of legal affairs and received various positive performance reviews.

Sexual harassment. Shortly after beginning her employment, the attorney alleged that the director of property and facility operations began “a persistent and invasive campaign of sexual harassment,” lingering in her office doorway, leering at her, and, in one instance, suddenly lunging his body across hers, thrusting his pelvis and genitals into her face.

After attempting to resolve the issue informally but getting nowhere, the attorney filed a formal complaint with the HR department, upsetting her then-supervisor. An investigation determined there was no violation of company policy or the law. At this point, the attorney alleged a pattern of retaliatory actions began, including a negative 2019 performance review despite receiving “glowing” performance reviews in years prior.

Complaint. In April 2019, the attorney filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. LVMH moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement the attorney had signed in 2014 prior to beginning her employment. The motion was initially denied by the trial court, which was reversed in part on appeal. The attorney then proceeded to initiate an arbitration proceeding.

Congressional testimony. On November 16, 2021, the attorney testified before Congress about the alleged sexual harassment, assault, and retaliation she experienced at LVMH. Thereafter, she asserted that LVMH’s retaliatory actions “intensified.”

Settlement discussion. The attorney’s supervisor was replaced by a new chief legal counsel on July 25, 2022. The following month, he requested a meeting with the attorney to discuss or negotiate a settlement of her claims against LVMH. The attorney either refused or opted not to respond to this request, which “infuriated” her supervisor and led to more alleged retaliatory acts, culminating in the attorney’s termination on December 1, 2022.

Lawsuit. On December 11, 2023, the attorney filed this lawsuit asserting claims of retaliation in violation of Title VII against LVMH and retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL against her supervisor. She also filed a proposed order to show cause seeking an order enjoining the defendants from continuing the arbitration and a letter seeking a pre-motion conference regarding her intended motion for leave to amend the complaint to add her claims that were pending in arbitration.

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the attorney’s cross-motions to enjoin the arbitration and for leave to amend. This appeal followed.

Timeliness. First, the appellate court addressed the attorney’s retaliation claims. Before proceeding to its analysis, the court briefly addressed the timeliness factor as to the scope of these claims. The court noted that Title VII claims that accrue more than 300 days before a plaintiff files a charge with the EEOC are time-barred. Because the attorney filed her EEOC charge on May 19, 2023, consideration of her Title VII claim was limited to violations occurring after July 23, 2022. Similarly, her state-law claims were limited to events occurring after July 25, 2022, as those claims were brought against her supervisor individually and that was the date that he began his LVMH employment.

Protected activity. Turning to the question of whether the attorney engaged in protected activity after July 2022, she contended that her refusal to meet with her supervisor in August 2022 to discuss settling her claims was protected activity. The court here agreed.

As an initial matter, filing a lawsuit, an EEOC charge, or arbitration demand that alleges violations of Title VII, the NYSHRL, or the NYCHRL unquestionably constitutes a protected activity, explained the court. Accordingly, “If initiating a claim constitutes an assertion that the plaintiff was wronged, refusing to end a pursuit of that same claim with a settlement can—depending on the context—constitute a continuation of the same assertion,” said the court.

The relevant question, continued the court, is whether the employer understood or could reasonably have understood that the plaintiff’s refusal was an assertion of her continued opposition to the employer’s unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII. If so, the refusal is protected activity. Such was the case here.

By August 2022, the attorney had been vigorously, continuously, and publicly asserting that the defendants had engaged in unlawful employment practices for more than three years. Among other things, she filed a complaint in state court, opposed a motion to compel arbitration, and, outside of formal legal proceedings, had spoken out publicly about her experience. Thus, the court found she had plausibly alleged that in her refusal to meet with her supervisor to discuss a settlement, he could have reasonably understood that refusal as communicating her continued belief that she had been wronged. “That constitutes opposition and, thus, protected activity,” said the court.

Causation. Having determined the attorney plausibly alleged a protected activity, the court turned to the issue of whether she plausibly alleged causation between the protected activity and her termination on December 1, 2022, an instance of approximately four months. The court noted that it has previously held that similar amounts of time are sufficient to suggest causation.

Here, the attorney did not rely solely on temporal proximity to plead causation. She also alleged that she experienced repeated instances of antagonism and retaliatory animus between her refusal to meet with her supervisor and her termination. Assuming the truth of those allegations, the court concluded that the attorney plausibly alleged causation, and she plausibly asserted a claim of retaliation under Title VII and state law. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of these claims was vacated.

Motion to amend. Next, the appellate court considered the attorney’s cross-motion to amend her complaint, which the district court had denied. The cross-motion sought to “consolidate” her claims that were then pending in arbitration and the retaliation claims that were pending in this lawsuit. It was undisputed that the new claims in the proposed amended complaint were, at least facially, subject to the arbitration agreement the attorney had signed when she joined LVMH. The attorney argued, however, that the EFAA allows her to invalidate her arbitration agreement and to bring all of her claims in court.

On this point, the court disagreed with the attorney, finding all of the new claims she sought to add in her proposed amended complaint accrued prior to March 3, 2022.

Continuing violation? In an effort to get around this determination, the attorney argued that the continuing violation doctrine should apply to her new claims, contending that a hostile work environment persisted after the enactment of the EFAA. The court was not persuaded, finding the pre- and post-EFAA allegations of retaliation were not sufficiently related such that they were part of the same course of discriminatory conduct.

The pre-EFAA allegations were centered around the alleged sexual harasser and the attorney’s former supervisor. In contrast, the post-EFAA retaliation alleged by the attorney was perpetrated almost entirely by her subsequent supervisor. Thus, these two periods could not be said to constitute a continuing violation, explained the court.

Further, the type and characteristics of the alleged unlawful employment practices differed pre- and post-EFAA. The alleged acts of sexual harassment and assault occurred well before the EFAA’s enactment and did not reoccur post-EFAA. In addition, the character of the alleged retaliation changed as well, from negative performance reviews and professional shunning in the first instance, to termination in the second. Thus, the proposed new retaliatory hostile work environment claims in the proposed amended complaint accrued prior to the EFAA and did not reaccrue after the EFAA pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine, concluded the court, and it would have been futile to allow the attorney to amend to add these claims. Accordingly, this portion of the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-1697-cv.

Judge: Bianco, J.

Attorneys: Max Ephraim Rodriguez (Law Office of Max Rodriguez) for Andowah Newton. Aviva Grumet-Morris (Winston Taylor) for LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.

Companies: LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Retaliation Arbitration Discharge Discrimination SexualHarassment StateLawClaims ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews