Sotomayor’s District Court Decisions on Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

There’s only one case in this category. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion in this case is over 50 pages in length, so it provides a good look at her approach to sex or gender discrimination cases. It also provides a thorough analysis of when an award of punitive damages is appropriate.

Greenbaum v. Svenska Handelsbanken, 67 F. Supp. 2d 228 (SDNY 1999)
Victoria Greenbaum worked as a trader for the New York branch of an international banking corporation headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. After trying unsuccessfully for seven years to be promoted to the position of vice president, she sued her employer for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Administrative Code.

A jury returned a verdict in her favor of $320,000 in compensatory damages and $1.25 million in punitive damages. Her employer filed a motion asking Judge Sotomayor to vacate the jury verdict, contending that Greenbaum hadn’t proved sex discrimination and that, in any event, the punitive damages award was unreasonable. In denying the employer’s motion, Sotomayor reviewed the facts and the applicable law in great detail.

At the employer bank, it wasn’t necessary for a vice president’s position to be vacant for an employee to be named a vice president. The title was routinely given to employees who had strong recommendations from their superiors.

Greenbaum began to receive good performance reviews early in her career with the bank. After six months, two of her superiors gave her a glowing review and recommended to the management committee, who was all-male and controlled all decisions at the bank’s New York branch, that she be promoted to vice president. The committee denied the promotion because Greenbaum didn’t have any staff reporting directly to her. After a year, she had staff reporting directly to her, was again given a high performance review, and recommended to be promoted to a vice president’s position. The management committee again denied the request.

At the end of the next year, Greenbaum was given the highest overall evaluation possible and again recommended for a promotion to the position of vice president. The management committee again denied the promotion as being inappropriate, saying that if she were promoted to vice president, she would be reporting to another vice president. Another year went by. She again received the highest evaluation possible and the recommendation that she be made a vice president. The management committee denied this request this time because Greenbaum didn’t have enough responsibility to “have a vice-presidential job.”

She was transferred to another department and named assistant deputy treasurer. Her immediate boss told her that he would support her desire to become a vice president if she did a good job. Her boss and two of his male colleagues frequented strip and topless clubs and regularly recounted these adventures in graphic detail in the office. Greenbaum and other women in the office repeatedly complained. Greenbaum didn’t receive as glowing a performance review as she had in the past and was given a small bonus compared to many other employees.

The next year, Greenbaum was returned to the trading department and she again experienced significant success. Her evaluation that year called her performance “remarkable,” and she was again recommended for a promotion to vice president. The management committee turned it down, with no explanation this time.

Greenbaum filed a sex discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The division conducted a conference at which Greenbaum and bank officials appeared. The bank officials brought legal counsel with them, and the division took Greenbaum’s complaint under advisement.

Shortly after the conference, one of Greenbaum’s former superiors was promoted from deputy treasurer to treasurer. He strongly recommended that Greenbaum be moved into the deputy treasurer’s position. Two members of the management committee reacted “very negatively” to this recommendation because of her sex discrimination complaint. It was explained that such a move would be “looked on very badly by Stockholm,” because “it was unheard of in Sweden” to “file a complaint against your employer.”

The bank underwent a reorganization, and Greenbaum was transferred to a completely different division. About five months later, the New York State Division of Human Rights issued a finding of probable cause that the bank was engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices against Greenbaum. Two months later, she received a letter saying that her job was being terminated as part of the general phase-out of the division to which Greenbaum had been transferred. The letter also stated that another job would be posted for which Greenbaum could apply. It was, however, an administrative position and paid $40,000 less than she had been making. She decided not to apply, and her employment was terminated. Her lawsuit followed.

In ruling on the bank’s motion that the jury verdict in Greenbaum’s favor be set aside, Judge Sotomayor said, in a manner of speaking, that what Greenbaum had proved walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and looked like a duck. Thus, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that it was a duck, a.k.a. sex discrimination.

She had made a preliminary case of sex discrimination. She had demonstrated that the bank’s stated reason for her termination was pretextual, and her proof in this regard was strong enough to also be evidence of sex discrimination. There were the management committee’s shifting reasons for its decision to deny Greenbaum’s promotion to vice president, and as it turned out some reasons weren’t true. Some vice presidents did report to other vice presidents. The claim that her job wasn’t vice-presidential in nature was consistently contradicted by her glowing performance evaluations.

A key member of the management committee testified that he had never received a recommendation that Greenbaum be promoted, a statement contradicted by her immediate superiors and their performance reviews. It was also common at the bank for promotion recommendations of department heads to be routinely rubber-stamped by the management committee. All of this evidence would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the bank was guilty of sex discrimination.

There was also independent evidence of sex discrimination in this case. The only woman to ever be given the title of vice president at the bank had been forced out of the position after only a month when she was found to be “too aggressive,” a characterization that showed sex stereotyping by the bank. Members of the all-male management committee had expressed the opinion that a woman couldn’t control the treasury department because employees “wouldn’t listen to a woman” and had referred to other women negatively as “tough broads.”

Based on all the evidence, Sotomayor had little difficulty finding that the jury’s verdict was proper on the issue of sex discrimination and on the issue of retaliation. Sotomayor also found that while under Title VII Greenbaum would have been entitled to recover only $500,000 because of damage caps and while under New York State Human Rights Law she couldn’t have recovered any punitive damages, she was entitled to unlimited damages under the New York City Administrative Code. Greenbaum had proved that the bank, a wealthy international employer, was guilty of egregious conduct toward her. The punitive damages award of $1.25 million was, therefore, appropriate.

Analysis on Sotomayor’s decision on sex discrimination
Sotomayor’s detailed recitation of the facts in this case is impressive. Her analysis of the law is well-reasoned. It would be hard to imagine any outcome in this case other than the one Sotomayor endorsed.

Next, we’ll look at Sotomayor’s age discrimination cases in her role as a district judge.