Cushman & Wakefield ignored harassment complaint, fired worker, lawsuit alleges

That phrase captures why this case matters to anyone who runs a people function. The complaint alleges she raised the conduct with her property manager and with a human resources representative. The company opened an internal process, the filing says, then shut its investigation around December 2023 with no corrective action and declined to hand over any documentation. The supervisor, according to the complaint, faced no consequences and still works at the firm. 

The retaliation timeline is the part HR leaders should sit with. After her complaints, the filing says, she was moved to report to a supervisor who was personally close to the man she had accused, while he kept showing up at her worksite. She was suddenly required to do multiple daily check-ins, hit with disciplinary warnings, and placed on performance improvement plans – none of which, the complaint says, had ever happened before she spoke up. In April 2024, the filing alleges, the company advertised her job before her improvement plan had even run its course. She was terminated weeks later, on May 1, 2024. 

There’s a wage claim layered on top. The complaint alleges that from around March 2023 to March 2024, she routinely worked about 49 hours a week – paid at roughly $31.25 and later $32.00 an hour – but was compensated for only 40, with no overtime. It says her direct supervisor worked alongside her during those extra hours and knew about them. 

The lawsuit brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, along with a count for negligent training and supervision. 

Strip away the specifics and the complaint reads like a map of where harassment claims turn into retaliation claims: a supervisor left in charge after a reported complaint, an investigation that the filing says ended without findings or paperwork, a reassignment that kept the accuser within reach of the accused, and a wave of discipline that the complaint says followed a protected complaint. Each step, as alleged, is a decision an HR team makes – or fails to make.