Worker, 67, sues Cushman & Wakefield over age bias and machine-room workspace

The story shifts in spring 2024, when new managers took over the account. Senior Account Director Jason Balog allegedly told her early on that “13 years was a long time to be on an account.” Her direct supervisor, Facilities Manager Adrian Adams, allegedly said “10 plus years is way too long to be on an account” and repeatedly called her “Ma’am” before asking if the term bothered her, the filing says. 

What followed, according to the complaint, was a months-long squeeze. In late August 2024, O’Neill says she arrived to find her belongings boxed up and moved to a second-floor machine room at 240 East 38th Street – a deconstructed electrical closet too small for two people, with exposed wiring, pressurized gas cylinders stored by the door, and a posted sign warning the space “May Have Insufficient Oxygen.” The nearest bathroom, the complaint says, was two floors down and locked until 8 a.m. A younger colleague in the same role was never moved, according to the filing. 

The financial hits came next. O’Neill’s annual bonus dropped from a usual range of approximately $4,000 to $5,000 to $637.73 gross for 2024 – roughly an 85% cut, the complaint says. Her cost-of-living raise was 1% while others on the account allegedly received 3%. Her schedule was reshuffled twice, doubling her morning commute and tripling her evening commute. In February 2025, she received the first negative performance review of her more than 13-year career, a 2 out of 5. 

For HR readers, the complaint’s account of the company’s internal response is the part to watch. O’Neill says she sent a formal written complaint to HR Business Partner Ingrid Edwards in March 2025, flagging both unsafe working conditions and age-based treatment – and explicitly naming her age, 66 at the time, as part of what was happening. According to the filing, Edwards did not engage with the substance, and follow-up emails went unanswered. The company only responded, the complaint says, after O’Neill retained a lawyer who wrote in on May 16, 2025. 

O’Neill filed an EEOC charge on May 25, 2025. The retaliation got worse from there, the complaint alleges. On June 3, Adams allegedly brought a job candidate who appeared significantly younger than O’Neill directly to her machine-room workspace, telling her he wanted to show the candidate “the not normal office conditions.” A week later, the filing says, Adams emailed his direct-report superintendents with his schedule and emergency contacts and left O’Neill off – she only found out when three superintendents asked her why she had been excluded.