Staff counted down her last minutes while colleagues watched from a meeting
An employee at LVMH refused one meeting - and a federal appeals court ruled that refusal could amount to a protected act under anti-retaliation law.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 21 partially overturned a lower court's dismissal of retaliation claims against LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., finding a former in-house attorney had plausibly alleged that turning down a settlement discussion with her new supervisor counted as protected opposition under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The worker had alleged years of sexual harassment by a facilities director starting in 2015, including an alleged physical assault in her office. She raised it internally. The complaint alleged the company looked the other way - an internal investigator allegedly called it "just a misunderstanding," and a senior executive allegedly told her there are "certain things we have to put up with."
She filed a state court lawsuit in 2019. It was compelled to arbitration.
Then things shifted. In July 2022, a new chief legal officer joined LVMH as her direct supervisor. He requested a one-on-one meeting to "discuss or negotiate a settlement" of her pending claims. She declined.
According to the complaint, what came next was preapproval requirements on speaking engagements, exclusion from key matters, and dismissive treatment in meetings. On December 1, 2022, she was fired.
The exit was anything but quiet. The complaint alleged the company abandoned its usual Friday morning protocol and scheduled a mandatory team meeting right after - so colleagues walked back to find the worker "frantically packing up her personal items" while staff counted down her final minutes aloud.
The appeals court held that given years of vocal opposition to alleged discrimination, the refusal to meet could reasonably be read as continued opposition to unlawful practices. Context made it protected - not a blanket rule.
On a second issue, the court affirmed that the worker could not fold her earlier arbitration claims into the federal case. Those claims accrued before the March 2022 effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply.
For HR teams, the practical point is direct: settlement conversations with employees who have live discrimination claims carry their own retaliation exposure.
