Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—S.D.N.Y.: Jewish employee’s retaliation claim against Disney subsidiary survives summary judgment, (Apr 1, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The employee could not identify a single employee at the Walt Disney Company (the parent company) who was involved with investigating any of the complaints he alleged.

Part of a Jewish employee’s retaliation claim against a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company can proceed to trial, a federal district court in New York has ruled. The involvement of the same person that he complained about with respect to his salary and ultimate termination raised triable issues, the court concluded. However, the court held that the Walt Disney Company itself could not be held liable because it did not operate as a single company with its subsidiary (Farber v. The Walt Disney Company, No 24-cv-391 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026)).

Complaints of discrimination. The employee, who is Jewish, was hired in 2017 by the Disney Theatrical Group as a Labor Relations Coordinator. Three years later he complained to the senior director of employee relations at Walt Disney Studios (a parent company of the Theatrical Group), providing a long list of allegedly discriminatory actions by the Director of HR for Disney Theatrical Group, including an anti-Semitic tweet she made in 2014. An internal investigation was made, but it took place while the employee and others were furloughed because of COVID-19.

When he returned from furlough, he was still being considered for a promotion that he began seeking before the furlough. He also applied for a separate promotion in a different department, but did not get a final round interview. A month later he received the first promotion he sought and was offered a salary that was lower than the recommended one. He took the promotion and complained about the salary, after which it was increased.

Just over a year later, during which time he came under a new boss, he complained about his new boss. That complaint was also investigated, but during the investigation information came to light about the employee and comments he had made to others. The employee relations manager who investigated recommended that the employee be terminated. The same higher-up to whom he had complained fired him. He was placed on a “do not admit” list and barred from attending Disney events.

He sued Disney and its subsidiary Disney Theatrical Group for retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Disney and its subsidiary moved for summary judgment.

Retaliation claims. The court held that the employee’s claim may proceed to trial, but only as to some of the alleged retaliatory acts. The employee identified four potentially retaliatory acts: (1) not including him in an investigation against the HR Director, (2) refusing to give him a final round interview for a promotion, (3) giving him a lower salary than expected upon the promotion, and (4) firing him and putting him on the “do not admit” list.

Investigation. The employee was furloughed in April 2020 because of COVID-19. When he returned in June 2020, he was informed that the investigation had concluded that were was no evidence of religious discrimination against him. The court determined that not interviewing the employee as part of an investigation into his claims was not retaliatory. The employer offered a clear non-pretextual reason for not interviewing him. It had a general policy of not interviewing complainants while they were furloughed because it would require putting them back on the payroll at a time of great financial stress for a company focused on live events.

Promotion interview. Not giving the employee a final round interview also wasn’t retaliatory, the court determined. The employee pointed to no evidence suggesting the HR Director was involved in the decision. Instead, he conjectured that the hiring manager and HR Director were friends, and so the HR Director (or somebody else) must have told the hiring manager about the complaint against her. Then, allegedly, the hiring manager retaliated against the employee by not advancing him to the final interview. But the employee conceded that there was “no direct evidence” that the hiring manager was told. Instead, he tried to raise inferences from other evidence but the court found that each one was “a bridge too far.” Nor could the employee rebut the non-pretextual reason provided for not advancing him—that he did not have the relevant experience.

Lower salary. However, the employee’s argument that he was initially given a lower salary upon being promoted to another position can proceed to trial, the court determined. Here, the HR Director appears to have been directly involved in setting his compensation, the court noted. The involvement of the very same person that the employee complained about in setting that lower salary satisfied the causation prong of the NYCHRL, which requires only that the retaliation “was motivated at least in part by an impermissible motive.” And to be clear, said the court, offering the employee a lower salary “is certainly the kind of conduct that would reasonably deter somebody from filing complaints in the future.” Against that, Disney and its subsidiary argued that offering lower salaries either routinely happens or was uniquely justified in this case because of his job performance or the firm’s financials. Perhaps that’s true, said the court, “but whether that carries the day is a factual question for the jury,” not one for the court to resolve.

Termination. Finally, the employee’s claim based on his termination can go to trial, the court ruled. The employee was fired in 2023, two years after he raised his complaint about his new boss. That chain of events began when he brought a complaint to a higher-up about his new boss, that complaint was investigated, and that investigation suggested to the investigator that the employee lied to the higher-up and made improper statements to people outside the company. That led to the investigator recommending that the employee be fired.

The employee contended that the entire investigation was a sham, motivated by the complaints he made while the investigation was pending: his complaint about not being interviewed in the investigation into his complaints about the HR Director, his complaint after he didn’t get a prior promotion, and his challenge to his lower salary. These complaints, he maintained, were what really led to his termination. The court found that there was some evidence supporting the employee’s account. The HR Director communicated with the higher-up, who ultimately fired the employee shortly after the employee’s salary complaint. The HR Director was then involved again when the employee came to the higher-up to discuss his problems with his new boss (he cc’d her on the email that he sent memorializing the conversation with the employee). Whether the investigation was a sham or not is a question for the jury, the court said.

In sum, the court concluded, although a jury may ultimately reject the employee’s side of this story, the continued involvement of the very same person that he complained about with respect to his salary and ultimate termination raised triable issues. The court therefore ruled that some of the employee’s claims can proceed to trial.

Walt Disney Company wasn’t proper defendant. The Walt Disney Company moved to dismiss the employee’s claims against it arguing that the plaintiff was employed by the Theatrical Group (a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney).

The allegations raised the question of fact as to whether Disney and the Theatrical Group operated as a single employer. In determining this, the relevant factors are: (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control. Disney’s challenge was based on the second factor, centralized control of labor relations.

It argued that the Walt Disney Company is comprised of three subsidiaries, one of which is the parent company of the Theatrical Group, the employee’s direct employer. That, Disney argued, they say, was a bridge too far. Against that, the employee pointed to employees involved with various Disney subsidiaries who were involved with investigating his complaints. He argued that the general policy for complaining about workplace discrimination is shared among the subsidiaries, evidenced in part by a shared employee handbook.

But importantly, the court noted, he could not identify a single employee at the Walt Disney Company (the ultimate parent) who was involved with any of this, indicating that—if control was centralized—it wasn’t centralized within the company that he was trying to sue.

The employee could not raise any dispute of fact as to any employee at the Walt Disney Company making any decision about his employment matter. His arguments to the contrary don’t lead to any other conclusion, said the court. He pointed to the shared employee manual and the fact that some employees use “The Walt Disney Company” in their email signatures—but neither of these shows anything like control of labor that would be required to hold the indirect parent company liable, the court concluded.

The case is No. 24-cv-391 (AS).

Judge: Subramanian, A.

Attorneys: Dominique Caamano (Kibler Fowler & Cave) for Jonathan Farber. Kerry Alan Scanlon (McDermott Will & Schulte) for The Walt Disney Co., Buena Vista Theatrical Group Ltd. d/b/a Disney Theatrical Group.

Companies: The Walt Disney Co.; Buena Vista Theatrical Group Ltd.; Disney Theatrical Group

Cases: Retaliation CoverageLiability Discharge ReligiousDiscrimination NewYorkNews