Former manager sues Kate Spade, blaming race, age and disability bias

Stewart alleges that Tapestry, Inc. – which operates as Kate Spade New York – began subjecting her to heightened scrutiny, hostility, and what the complaint calls “retaliatory investigations.” She says the company criticized her leadership “style” and “tone” and described her as “angry” and “loud,” even as it tolerated insubordination from employees below her. 

Then she pushed back. On May 8, 2025, according to the complaint, Stewart told the company in writing that she believed she was being targeted as a “58-year-old African American female.” The filing states she also said she felt subjected to a “witch-hunt” and a “modern day lynching of a black woman.” She alleges the company had notice she was raising race discrimination and retaliation. 

Around the same time, the complaint says, Stewart disclosed serious health conditions – anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and insomnia among them – and asked for protected leave. The company approved it. The filing says Lincoln Financial approved disability-related leave through July 6, 2025. She came back that month. 

The respite was short. Within weeks of her return, Stewart alleges, the investigations and criticism ramped up again. On August 5, 2025, the company fired her, citing policy violations and a failure to protect company assets. Stewart calls those reasons “false,” “selectively enforced,” and “pretextual.” She claims, on information and belief, that non-Black and younger colleagues did similar or worse – including breaking alarm and operational procedures – and kept their jobs. 

For HR professionals, this one rewards a close read. The sequence is the story: a discrimination complaint in May, approved leave into early July, a firing in early August. That kind of timing invites questions about retaliation, and the complaint frames it deliberately. So does the selective-enforcement argument – the claim that identical conduct met different consequences depending on the employee. Stewart also points to a subordinate she says undermined her, and argues the company amplified complaints against her while sidelining her own.