She complained, took leave, came back - then lost her job weeks later, the suit alleges
A Kate Spade store manager says she was fired weeks after returning from medical leave - and alleges her termination was bias dressed up as policy.
A former Kate Spade store manager in Oak Brook, Illinois, is suing the company behind the brand, saying she was singled out, over-scrutinized, and ultimately fired because of her race, age, and disability - and for complaining about it.
Rhonda P. Stewart filed her complaint on June 4, 2026, in federal court in Chicago. She had managed the store since March 2023, hired, she says, for her retail leadership experience. The filing says she performed well at first and drew praise. Then, around December 2024, the relationship soured.
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.
Stewart filed an EEOC charge in September 2025 and received a Notice of Right to Sue on March 6, 2026. Her lawsuit raises claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She is seeking back pay, front pay, reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
The takeaway for employers is familiar but worth repeating: documentation and consistency matter most when the stakes are highest. When discipline lands shortly after a protected complaint or a return from leave, the timing tends to draw scrutiny - and a "we enforced the policy" explanation is far easier to defend when the policy was enforced the same way for everyone.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Tapestry has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
