In a dramatic turn of events, Paul Schwartz, the ex-CFO of Anderson Kill PC, retaliates against attempts to disqualify his counsel and partially dismiss his lawsuit. Schwartz alleges he was unlawfully terminated after seeking disability accommodations following a head injury in February 2022. His complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that he suffered demotion and termination, accompanied by harassing communications from the defendants during his recovery period.
Ex-Anderson Kill CFO lawsuit : Explosive Lawsuit Unfolds
Unraveling a Web of Discrimination
Schwartz’s lawsuit, filed in August 2023, alleges sex and disability discrimination and retaliation, citing violations of Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Notably, he claims that Anderson Kill denied accommodation requests for male employees, perpetuating outdated gender stereotypes.
Strategic Moves and Counterclaims
Anderson Kill responded with a motion for partial dismissal in December 2023, asserting that Schwartz’s complaint lacked sufficient evidence of sex-based discrimination. Schwartz counters that the move is an intentional obfuscation by Anderson Kill’s legal counsel from Littler Mendelson PC, attempting to confuse summary judgment standards with pleading standards.
Battle Over Legal Representation
Ma’s Role in Question
The crux of the disqualification bid revolves around Schwartz’s attorney, Tiffany Ma, whom Anderson Kill deems a “necessary witness” for the defense. Schwartz vehemently rejects this claim, asserting that the bid is a mere litigation tactic. The filing alleges that Ma, who communicated with the firm on Schwartz’s behalf, cannot prosecute the claims due to her involvement in the “interactive accommodation process.”
Timeline of Contention
According to a timeline presented in Schwartz’s filing, on May 9, 2022, Schwartz requested medical accommodations, followed by a brief phone call between Ma and Kahn on May 10. By May 12, the firm communicated its inability to accommodate Schwartz and discussed termination and severance. Schwartz contends that the defendants were aware of potential litigation by May 12.
Accusations of Delay Tactics
Schwartz accuses Anderson Kill, particularly its legal counsel from Littler Mendelson, of attempting to “delay, distract, and elevate expenses” in what he deems a straightforward case that should swiftly proceed to trial. He emphasizes that Ma’s role is not that of a necessary witness in a process handled in writing, accusing the defense of creating unnecessary complexity.
The Future of the Battle
As the legal drama unfolds, questions linger about the fate of Schwartz’s explosive retaliation suit against Anderson Kill. The courtroom showdown promises to shed light on the alleged discriminatory practices within the firm and the tactics employed to silence dissent.
