▶ Video explainer coming soon
The court sided with Cushman & Wakefield. It found the company gave real, non-retaliatory reasons for each action. The negative review came from new leadership expectations, not the harassment complaint. Most executives involved didn't even know about her complaints. The promotions went to other qualified candidates. Her termination was tied to a company acquisition and downsizing, which she had already admitted caused job cuts. The court also rejected her age and sex discrimination claims, saying comments like being 'old school' were not enough to prove bias.
Maria Sicola worked for Cushman & Wakefield. She had filed a sexual harassment complaint about another employee. Later, she got a negative performance review after a new global CEO changed expectations for her role. She also sent a letter to the company's general counsel claiming age and sex discrimination. Soon after, she was passed over for promotions and eventually lost her job during a company acquisition and downsizing. Sicola sued, claiming these actions were retaliation and discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, known as FEHA.
The key question was whether Cushman & Wakefield's actions were truly retaliation or discrimination, or whether they had legitimate business reasons. Courts use a step-by-step test: the employee must first show protected activity, an adverse action, and a link between them. Then the employer can offer a non-retaliatory reason. If they do, the employee must prove that reason was just a cover-up.
This case shows how courts examine claims of workplace retaliation. Timing alone isn't enough to prove a company punished someone for complaining. Employers can win these cases by showing clear, documented business reasons for their decisions, especially when decision-makers didn't know about the protected complaints.
Talk to a licensed employment law lawyer in New York.