January 28, 2025 • 17 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
Can a single voice challenge the might of corporate inertia and change the course of workplace culture? Step into the gripping story of Renee Mihalik as she confronts gender discrimination and retaliation in the daunting corridors of Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc. Explore how she navigated a hostile environment described as a "boys club" and sought justice under the New York City Human Rights Law, facing initial legal setbacks. Through the lens of her case, we consider the broader implications for employees fighting against discrimination and what legal frameworks offer them protection.
This episode provides a critical examination of the intersection between corporate responsibility and employee rights, urging a reassessment of how workplaces can evolve to be more inclusive. We discuss the crucial role of robust anti-discrimination policies, effective training, and diverse leadership structures in crafting respectful work environments. By addressing the potential impact of technology on workplace dynamics, we encourage listeners to actively participate in the pursuit of equality. Join us on this enlightening journey, as we explore how each individual can become an agent of change and push the bounds of corporate culture toward a more equitable future.
Show Notes:
Copy of Court of Appeals Decision
Copy of District Court Decision
Copy of the original complaint filed by Renee Mihalik in state court
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
And we're going to unpack a legal case that really
gets to the heart of whatexactly is gender discrimination
in the workplace.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And you've sent us some fascinating legal documents
, court filings and decisionsaround the case of Renee Mihalik
.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And so our mission today is to figure out what
happened to her at thesecurities brokerage firm.
Right today is to figure outwhat happened to her at the
securities brokerage firm, whatclaims she made against them and
how the courts responded tothose claims.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
What's really interesting is that, having
access to these documents, wecan sort of trace how a case
evolves.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Oh interesting.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
We can look at the initial complaints, see how the
company responded and thenreally get into the nitty-gritty
of the court's reasoning andthe court's thinking.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
So Renee Mihalik?
Yes, tell me more about her andwhere she worked.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
So Renee Mihalik was hired as a vice president at
Credit Agricole Shoe Vro NorthAmerica.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
A firm that, from this point on, we'll just call
Shoe Vro for simplicity.
She worked in a division calledAlternative Execution Services.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
And this is where it gets interesting, right, she was
brought on in what's called astanding start position.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
A standing start.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, Essentially she was expected to build her
client base from scratch.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Not walk into a portfolio of existing clients
that were already generatingrevenue?
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Oh, so like thrown into the deep end and sink or
swim.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Exactly, and that's a detail that becomes really
important later on when we lookat her performance.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Gotcha.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
You know, building a client base like that,
especially in this world, yeah,takes a lot of time relationship
building.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
But there's another layer to this story, and it's a
pretty significant one.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Okay.
Mihalik alleged that Chauvreauhad this pervasive boys club
atmosphere oh, okay which madeher job even harder okay, so
more about this boys clubenvironment, right?
What exactly does she allegewas going on?
Speaker 2 (01:54):
mahalla claimed that her supervisor, ian peacock, who
was also the firm's ceo, oh,wow made frequent sexually
suggestive comments about herappearance, telling her she
looks sexy, asking about herdating preferences, which
obviously made her uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
She even alleged that he showed her pornography on
his computer on more than oneoccasion.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Wow, so that definitely sounds like it could
create a hostile workenvironment.
Did Chavreau acknowledge any ofthis?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, it's important to remember that these are
allegations and Chavreaudisputed many of them.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Part of the legal process is to figure out what
actually happened.
Sure, and if it crosses thatline into unlawful
discrimination?
So it's kind of he said, shesaid In a way, yes, yeah, but
the court also looked at otherthings, like Mihalyk's
performance.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
And whether there were any legitimate reasons for
her dismissal.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Speaking of performance, the documents you
sent mentioned that Mihalyk'ssales figures weren't as high as
some of her colleagues.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That's right.
Is that right?
Her sales were lower.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
OK.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
However, the documents also make it clear
that she was starting with zeroclients and expected to bring in
new business that wouldn'tnecessarily generate revenue
right away.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
It's not like selling a product.
You make the sale, you get thecommission.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Exactly, and here's another important point.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
OK.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
The documents show that some of the clients that
she brought in only startedgenerating substantial revenue
for Chevavreau after she wasgone.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Oh, wow, yeah, so judging her performance solely
on those initial sales figuresmight not be the whole story.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Exactly, and there's more.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Oh, ok, she did have some performance issues.
Ok.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Sometimes she didn't follow up on leads as quickly as
expected and she did miss afair number of work days.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Was she like skipping out on work?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
No, no.
All of her absences were withinher allotted vacation and sick
time.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Which is important to note legally.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
So we've got this complex situation where she
wasn't a perfect employee, butthere are also these
circumstances that might explainsome of those performance
issues.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
It's like a puzzle with missing pieces.
Did Mihalik just accept thesituation?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Actually, no, she decided to take action, but
before filing her lawsuit shetried to address the situation
internally.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Did she go straight to HR?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
She complained to the head compliance officer about
Peacock's behavior, but herearly complaints focused more on
his management style and theway he criticized her rather
than explicitly mentioningsexual harassment.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Gotcha.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
But later she did bring up those inappropriate
comments and the fact that hehad shown her pornography.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So she did try to raise the alarm, but it sounds
like things didn't really changeRight, and that's when Mihalyk
decided to take legal action.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
She filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination
and retaliation under the NewYork City human rights law.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Which is often shortened to NYCHRL Right, and
you mentioned the NYCHRL earlier.
Can you explain what that isand why she chose to sue under
that specific law?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That's a great question, yeah, and it's really
crucial for understanding therest of this case.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
OK.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
The NYCHRL is a local law in New York City that's
designed to protect employeesfrom discrimination.
Gotcha, it's often seen asoffering broader protections
than federal law.
Okay, when it comes to thingslike gender discrimination and
harassment.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay, so that's a key detail to keep in mind.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So she goes to court armed with this NYCHRL lawsuit.
What happens next?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's where things get really interesting.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
And we'll dive into that in the next part of our
deep dive.
Okay, all right, that soundsgood, yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So we left off with Renee Mihalik filing this
lawsuit under the NYCHRL and yousaid it's often seen as like
stronger than federal law.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
When it comes to protecting employees.
Her case went before a judge.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Well, initially the district court actually ruled in
favor of Chavreau.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Oh really.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, dismissing all of Mihalyk's claims.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Oh wow, it sounded like she had a pretty strong
case.
What was the court's reasoningfor dismissing it?
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So they basically said that there wasn't a direct,
clear link between Peacock'sadvances and her firing, and
they also felt that theharassment, if it did happen, as
she described it, wasn't severeor pervasive enough to actually
create a hostile workenvironment under the law.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So they're basically saying it wasn't bad enough to
count as discrimination?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Yeah, essentially.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That must have been a huge disappointment for Mihalyk
.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Oh, definitely, but here's where it gets really
interesting.
Okay, mihalyk didn't give up.
Okay, she appealed the decision.
Good for her and the Court ofAppeals actually vacated the
district court's judgment oh wowand sent the case back down for
trial.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So a higher court overturned the original ruling.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
That's a pretty big deal.
Why did they do that?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Because they felt that the district court had
interpreted the NYC HRL toonarrowly.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
OK.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Remember, we talked about how the NYC HRL is
designed to provide.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Broader protections for employees.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Yeah, it's not just about proving that someone was
directly fired because theyregended a sexual advance Right
or that the harassment was sosevere it made it impossible to
do their job.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Exactly, and the Court of Appeals really
emphasized that the NYCHRL goesfurther than that.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
You know it doesn't tolerate what they call
differential treatment becauseof gender, gotcha.
In simpler terms anytime anemployee is treated worse
because of their gender, thatcould be considered
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Under the NYCHRL.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So how did that apply to Mihalik's situation?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Well, the court pointed to several things.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
One was that boys club atmosphere that Mihalik
described.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
They seem to agree that, if her account was
accurate, the environment atChouvreau could be considered
hostile, particularly for women.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
So even if there wasn't like one single egregious
act of harassment, the overallculture.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The overall culture of the workplace mattered.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Really mattered.
The court also looked at theway Mahalik's performance was
evaluated.
You mean the fact that hersales numbers were lower.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Right, they acknowledged that her
performance wasn't perfect.
Right, but they made thisreally crucial point Even if an
employee is struggling, thatdoesn't give an employer the
right to discriminate againstthem.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
You can't just use someone'sperformance as an excuse to
treat them unfairly because oftheir gender.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Exactly, and the court was essentially saying
let's not lose sight of thebigger picture.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Even if she wasn't the top salesperson, does that
justify subjecting her to ahostile work environment because
of her gender?
Speaker 1 (08:35):
So by sending the case back for trial, it sounds
like the Port of Appeals wassaying hold on, there's some
serious issues here that need tobe examined more closely.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Did a jury actually get to hear this case and decide
?
Speaker 2 (08:49):
That's where things take another turn.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Instead of going to a full-blown trial, the parties
actually reached a settlement.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Oh wow, A settlement.
So we don't really know whathappened in the end.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Right Settlement agreements are usually
confidential, so we don't knowthe exact terms of the agreement
or who, if anyone won.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
That's too bad.
Yeah, it would have beenfascinating to see how a jury
applied the NYCHRL yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
In this kind of situation.
Yeah, right, right, but doesthe fact that they settled tell
us anything?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
It could.
You know, reaching a settlementoften means that both sides
recognize there was a certainamount of risk involved in going
to trial Right.
It suggests that Chivro mighthave been concerned that a jury,
especially after that court ofappeals ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Right.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Could side with Mihalik.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
It makes you wonder what was going on behind the
scenes Like did Shiver realizethey had a weak case or did they
just want to avoid the negativepublicity of a trial?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
We can only speculate , but it definitely adds another
layer of intrigue to this wholestory.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So let's recap for our listener.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
We have this woman.
She claims she was subjected togender discrimination.
Right Toxic work environment.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Uh-huh.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
A lower court dismisses her case and then a
higher court steps in and saysnot so fast, right, there's some
serious questions here thatneed to be answered.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
And then, before trial can even begin, the whole
thing ends in a settlement RightLeaving.
And then, before trial can evenbegin, the whole thing ends in
a settlement Right, leaving usto wonder what really happened.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
It's almost like a legal thriller with a
cliffhanger ending.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
But even without a clear-cut verdict, the case has
some important things to tell usAbout how the law is applied in
these situations.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
So what's the takeaway for our listener?
Why should they care about thiscase?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Well, I think the biggest takeaway is that the law
, particularly when it comes tosomething as nuanced as
workplace discrimination, is notalways black and white Right.
There can be a lot of grayareas.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
And that's where laws like the NYCHRL come into play.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You're saying.
It shows that sometimes locallaws offer more protection than
federal laws.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
And it highlights the importance of knowing your
rights and what legal avenuesare available to you if you
think you've been discriminatedagainst.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's a good point.
It's easy to assume that thelaw is always on the side of the
employee.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But that's not always the case, especially when it
comes to federal law.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
So what happened to Michalik after the settlement?
Unfortunately we don't know.
Oh the details of settlementsare usually confidential.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
And the documents you sent don't say anything about
what happened to her after thecase concluded.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
That's a shame.
Yeah, I'd be curious to know ifshe stayed in the finance
industry or pursued a differentpath.
Right, but even without knowingthat, it's clear that this case
sparked a much largerconversation about workplace
culture and the need forstronger legal protections
against discrimination.
Absolutely, should we explorethat now?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Absolutely.
Let's dive into that in thenext part of our deep dive.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
We've been talking about this legal case with Renee
Mihalik, yeah, been talkingabout this legal case with Renee
Mihalik, yeah, and even thoughit's settled out of court, it
raises some interestingquestions about the gray areas
of gender discrimination.
So what are some of the broaderimplications for businesses and
employees?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, it definitely shines a light on that tension
between protecting employees andallowing businesses, to you
know, function effectively.
You might even be thinkingwon't this make it harder for
companies to manage theiremployees?
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Yeah, I can see how some people might worry that.
You know, expanding thedefinition of discrimination
could create a lot of legalheadaches for businesses.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
That's a valid concern.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
But let's flip the script for a moment, okay, and
think about it from theperspective of the employee
who's experiencingdiscrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
You know their ability to do their job well.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Their mental health, their whole sense of well-being
can be severely impacted by ahostile work environment.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We saw how stressful and demoralizing it was for
Mihalyk when she felt like herconcerns weren't being taken
seriously.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Exactly, and that's why laws like the NYCHRL are so
important.
Yeah, they give employees a wayto speak up against
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Hold employers accountable for creating that
safe and inclusive workenvironment.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
So it's about finding that balance right.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Protecting employees without tying the hands of
businesses.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Exactly.
The challenge is to create lawsthat discourage discrimination
but don't make it impossible forbusinesses to operate
effectively.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
And, honestly, I think the conversation needs to
go beyond just the laws.
Okay, we need to foster aculture of respect and inclusion
in the workplace.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
So what are some concrete steps that companies
can take to create a moreequitable and respectful
environment for all employees?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Well, the first step is pretty straightforward Right,
have clear and comprehensiveanti-discrimination policies,
right.
But it's not enough to justhave them written down somewhere
.
Companies need to actuallytrain employees on what those
policies mean.
What constitutes inappropriatebehavior.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
How to report any concerns they have.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
You're saying it needs to be more than just words
on paper.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Right.
It's about creating a culturewhere everyone understands the
rules of the game and feelsempowered to speak up if they
see those rules being broken.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
And, I think, having diverse leadership teams can
also go a long way towardfostering a more inclusive
workplace.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
First, leadership teams can also go a long way
toward fostering a moreinclusive workplace.
Absolutely.
If the people in chargerepresent a wider range of
backgrounds and experiences,they're more likely to be
sensitive to the needs of allemployees.
Makes sense, and anothercrucial element is making sure
employees feel comfortablereporting concerns without fear
of retaliation, yeah.
Right Without fear ofretaliation.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
That means having multiple avenues for reporting,
right, not just relying on asingle HR department or a
manager who might be part of theproblem.
You know, listening to all this, I can't help but think about
(14:56):
the role technology plays, yes,in both amplifying and
mitigating these challenges.
Oh, that's such a great point.
Yeah, technology is adouble-edged sword when it comes
to discrimination.
Yeah, on the one hand, socialmedia has given a voice to those
who've experienceddiscrimination.
Right, you know, they can callout bad behavior, hold companies
accountable in ways thatweren't possible before.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
It's a whole new level of transparency.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
It is.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
But I guess the flip side is that technology can also
perpetuate those existingbiases.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Exactly.
We've seen how algorithms andAI can actually reinforce
existing inequalities Right,sometimes with discriminatory
outcomes.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So we need to be really thoughtful about how we
design and use technology.
Absolutely, it's not a neutraltool.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
It reflects the values and biases, yes, of the
people who created it.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Exactly, and I think, as technology continues to
evolve, we need to be even morevigilant about ensuring that
it's used to promote fairnessand equality.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
So this case, even though it ended in a settlement,
really highlights that creatinga truly equitable workplace
requires constant effort andvigilance.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
It does.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
It's not a one-time fix.
It's an ongoing process.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
I couldn't agree more .
It's a journey we all need tobe a part of.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Not just lawmakers and employers, but every single
one of us.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Well said, and I think that's a great note to end
on.
This case shows that the fightfor equality is far from over,
but it also gives us hope thatprogress is possible far from
over, but it also gives us hopethat progress is possible it
does To our listener.
Thank you for sharing thesedocuments with us.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
It's been a fascinating deep dive into a
really complex issue.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
It has.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
We hope you learned something new.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And maybe it's even sparked some new ideas for you
to explore.
Yeah, until next time, keepdiving deep.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Keep diving.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Keep asking questions .
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Ask those questions and keep the.
Welcome to this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
And we're going to unpack a legal case that really
gets to the heart of whatexactly is gender discrimination
in the workplace.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And you've sent us some fascinating legal documents
, court filings and decisionsaround the case of Renee Mihalik
.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And so our mission today is to figure out what
happened to her at thesecurities brokerage firm.
Right today is to figure outwhat happened to her at the
securities brokerage firm, whatclaims she made against them and
how the courts responded tothose claims.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
What's really interesting is that, having
access to these documents, wecan sort of trace how a case
evolves.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Oh interesting.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
We can look at the initial complaints, see how the
company responded and thenreally get into the nitty-gritty
of the court's reasoning andthe court's thinking.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
So Renee Mihalik?
Yes, tell me more about her andwhere she worked.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
So Renee Mihalik was hired as a vice president at
Credit Agricole Shoe Vro NorthAmerica.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
A firm that, from this point on, we'll just call
Shoe Vro for simplicity.
She worked in a division calledAlternative Execution Services.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
And this is where it gets interesting, right, she was
brought on in what's called astanding start position.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
A standing start.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, Essentially she was expected to build her
client base from scratch.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Not walk into a portfolio of existing clients
that were already generatingrevenue?
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Oh, so like thrown into the deep end and sink or
swim.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Exactly, and that's a detail that becomes really
important later on when we lookat her performance.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Gotcha.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
You know, building a client base like that,
especially in this world, yeah,takes a lot of time relationship
building.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
But there's another layer to this story, and it's a
pretty significant one.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Okay.
Mihalik alleged that Chauvreauhad this pervasive boys club
atmosphere oh, okay which madeher job even harder okay, so
more about this boys clubenvironment, right?
What exactly does she allegewas going on?
Speaker 2 (01:54):
mahalla claimed that her supervisor, ian peacock, who
was also the firm's ceo, oh,wow made frequent sexually
suggestive comments about herappearance, telling her she
looks sexy, asking about herdating preferences, which
obviously made her uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
She even alleged that he showed her pornography on
his computer on more than oneoccasion.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Wow, so that definitely sounds like it could
create a hostile workenvironment.
Did Chavreau acknowledge any ofthis?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, it's important to remember that these are
allegations and Chavreaudisputed many of them.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Part of the legal process is to figure out what
actually happened.
Sure, and if it crosses thatline into unlawful
discrimination?
So it's kind of he said, shesaid In a way, yes, yeah, but
the court also looked at otherthings, like Mihalyk's
performance.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
And whether there were any legitimate reasons for
her dismissal.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Speaking of performance, the documents you
sent mentioned that Mihalyk'ssales figures weren't as high as
some of her colleagues.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That's right.
Is that right?
Her sales were lower.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
OK.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
However, the documents also make it clear
that she was starting with zeroclients and expected to bring in
new business that wouldn'tnecessarily generate revenue
right away.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
It's not like selling a product.
You make the sale, you get thecommission.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Exactly, and here's another important point.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
OK.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
The documents show that some of the clients that
she brought in only startedgenerating substantial revenue
for Chevavreau after she wasgone.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Oh, wow, yeah, so judging her performance solely
on those initial sales figuresmight not be the whole story.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Exactly, and there's more.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Oh, ok, she did have some performance issues.
Ok.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Sometimes she didn't follow up on leads as quickly as
expected and she did miss afair number of work days.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Was she like skipping out on work?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
No, no.
All of her absences were withinher allotted vacation and sick
time.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Which is important to note legally.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
So we've got this complex situation where she
wasn't a perfect employee, butthere are also these
circumstances that might explainsome of those performance
issues.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
It's like a puzzle with missing pieces.
Did Mihalik just accept thesituation?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Actually, no, she decided to take action, but
before filing her lawsuit shetried to address the situation
internally.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Did she go straight to HR?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
She complained to the head compliance officer about
Peacock's behavior, but herearly complaints focused more on
his management style and theway he criticized her rather
than explicitly mentioningsexual harassment.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Gotcha.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
But later she did bring up those inappropriate
comments and the fact that hehad shown her pornography.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So she did try to raise the alarm, but it sounds
like things didn't really changeRight, and that's when Mihalyk
decided to take legal action.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
She filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination
and retaliation under the NewYork City human rights law.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Which is often shortened to NYCHRL Right, and
you mentioned the NYCHRL earlier.
Can you explain what that isand why she chose to sue under
that specific law?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That's a great question, yeah, and it's really
crucial for understanding therest of this case.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
OK.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
The NYCHRL is a local law in New York City that's
designed to protect employeesfrom discrimination.
Gotcha, it's often seen asoffering broader protections
than federal law.
Okay, when it comes to thingslike gender discrimination and
harassment.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay, so that's a key detail to keep in mind.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So she goes to court armed with this NYCHRL lawsuit.
What happens next?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's where things get really interesting.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
And we'll dive into that in the next part of our
deep dive.
Okay, all right, that soundsgood, yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So we left off with Renee Mihalik filing this
lawsuit under the NYCHRL and yousaid it's often seen as like
stronger than federal law.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
When it comes to protecting employees.
Her case went before a judge.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Well, initially the district court actually ruled in
favor of Chavreau.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Oh really.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, dismissing all of Mihalyk's claims.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Oh wow, it sounded like she had a pretty strong
case.
What was the court's reasoningfor dismissing it?
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So they basically said that there wasn't a direct,
clear link between Peacock'sadvances and her firing, and
they also felt that theharassment, if it did happen, as
she described it, wasn't severeor pervasive enough to actually
create a hostile workenvironment under the law.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So they're basically saying it wasn't bad enough to
count as discrimination?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Yeah, essentially.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That must have been a huge disappointment for Mihalyk
.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Oh, definitely, but here's where it gets really
interesting.
Okay, mihalyk didn't give up.
Okay, she appealed the decision.
Good for her and the Court ofAppeals actually vacated the
district court's judgment oh wowand sent the case back down for
trial.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So a higher court overturned the original ruling.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
That's a pretty big deal.
Why did they do that?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Because they felt that the district court had
interpreted the NYC HRL toonarrowly.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
OK.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Remember, we talked about how the NYC HRL is
designed to provide.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Broader protections for employees.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Yeah, it's not just about proving that someone was
directly fired because theyregended a sexual advance Right
or that the harassment was sosevere it made it impossible to
do their job.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Exactly, and the Court of Appeals really
emphasized that the NYCHRL goesfurther than that.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
You know it doesn't tolerate what they call
differential treatment becauseof gender, gotcha.
In simpler terms anytime anemployee is treated worse
because of their gender, thatcould be considered
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Under the NYCHRL.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So how did that apply to Mihalik's situation?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Well, the court pointed to several things.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
One was that boys club atmosphere that Mihalik
described.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
They seem to agree that, if her account was
accurate, the environment atChouvreau could be considered
hostile, particularly for women.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
So even if there wasn't like one single egregious
act of harassment, the overallculture.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The overall culture of the workplace mattered.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Really mattered.
The court also looked at theway Mahalik's performance was
evaluated.
You mean the fact that hersales numbers were lower.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Right, they acknowledged that her
performance wasn't perfect.
Right, but they made thisreally crucial point Even if an
employee is struggling, thatdoesn't give an employer the
right to discriminate againstthem.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
You can't just use someone'sperformance as an excuse to
treat them unfairly because oftheir gender.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Exactly, and the court was essentially saying
let's not lose sight of thebigger picture.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Even if she wasn't the top salesperson, does that
justify subjecting her to ahostile work environment because
of her gender?
Speaker 1 (08:35):
So by sending the case back for trial, it sounds
like the Port of Appeals wassaying hold on, there's some
serious issues here that need tobe examined more closely.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Did a jury actually get to hear this case and decide
?
Speaker 2 (08:49):
That's where things take another turn.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Instead of going to a full-blown trial, the parties
actually reached a settlement.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Oh wow, A settlement.
So we don't really know whathappened in the end.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Right Settlement agreements are usually
confidential, so we don't knowthe exact terms of the agreement
or who, if anyone won.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
That's too bad.
Yeah, it would have beenfascinating to see how a jury
applied the NYCHRL yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
In this kind of situation.
Yeah, right, right, but doesthe fact that they settled tell
us anything?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
It could.
You know, reaching a settlementoften means that both sides
recognize there was a certainamount of risk involved in going
to trial Right.
It suggests that Chivro mighthave been concerned that a jury,
especially after that court ofappeals ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Right.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Could side with Mihalik.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
It makes you wonder what was going on behind the
scenes Like did Shiver realizethey had a weak case or did they
just want to avoid the negativepublicity of a trial?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
We can only speculate , but it definitely adds another
layer of intrigue to this wholestory.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So let's recap for our listener.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
We have this woman.
She claims she was subjected togender discrimination.
Right Toxic work environment.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Uh-huh.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
A lower court dismisses her case and then a
higher court steps in and saysnot so fast, right, there's some
serious questions here thatneed to be answered.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
And then, before trial can even begin, the whole
thing ends in a settlement RightLeaving.
And then, before trial can evenbegin, the whole thing ends in
a settlement Right, leaving usto wonder what really happened.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
It's almost like a legal thriller with a
cliffhanger ending.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
But even without a clear-cut verdict, the case has
some important things to tell usAbout how the law is applied in
these situations.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
So what's the takeaway for our listener?
Why should they care about thiscase?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Well, I think the biggest takeaway is that the law
, particularly when it comes tosomething as nuanced as
workplace discrimination, is notalways black and white Right.
There can be a lot of grayareas.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
And that's where laws like the NYCHRL come into play.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You're saying.
It shows that sometimes locallaws offer more protection than
federal laws.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
And it highlights the importance of knowing your
rights and what legal avenuesare available to you if you
think you've been discriminatedagainst.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's a good point.
It's easy to assume that thelaw is always on the side of the
employee.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But that's not always the case, especially when it
comes to federal law.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
So what happened to Michalik after the settlement?
Unfortunately we don't know.
Oh the details of settlementsare usually confidential.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
And the documents you sent don't say anything about
what happened to her after thecase concluded.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
That's a shame.
Yeah, I'd be curious to know ifshe stayed in the finance
industry or pursued a differentpath.
Right, but even without knowingthat, it's clear that this case
sparked a much largerconversation about workplace
culture and the need forstronger legal protections
against discrimination.
Absolutely, should we explorethat now?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Absolutely.
Let's dive into that in thenext part of our deep dive.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
We've been talking about this legal case with Renee
Mihalik, yeah, been talkingabout this legal case with Renee
Mihalik, yeah, and even thoughit's settled out of court, it
raises some interestingquestions about the gray areas
of gender discrimination.
So what are some of the broaderimplications for businesses and
employees?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, it definitely shines a light on that tension
between protecting employees andallowing businesses, to you
know, function effectively.
You might even be thinkingwon't this make it harder for
companies to manage theiremployees?
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Yeah, I can see how some people might worry that.
You know, expanding thedefinition of discrimination
could create a lot of legalheadaches for businesses.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
That's a valid concern.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
But let's flip the script for a moment, okay, and
think about it from theperspective of the employee
who's experiencingdiscrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
You know their ability to do their job well.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Their mental health, their whole sense of well-being
can be severely impacted by ahostile work environment.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We saw how stressful and demoralizing it was for
Mihalyk when she felt like herconcerns weren't being taken
seriously.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Exactly, and that's why laws like the NYCHRL are so
important.
Yeah, they give employees a wayto speak up against
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Hold employers accountable for creating that
safe and inclusive workenvironment.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
So it's about finding that balance right.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Protecting employees without tying the hands of
businesses.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Exactly.
The challenge is to create lawsthat discourage discrimination
but don't make it impossible forbusinesses to operate
effectively.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
And, honestly, I think the conversation needs to
go beyond just the laws.
Okay, we need to foster aculture of respect and inclusion
in the workplace.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
So what are some concrete steps that companies
can take to create a moreequitable and respectful
environment for all employees?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Well, the first step is pretty straightforward Right,
have clear and comprehensiveanti-discrimination policies,
right.
But it's not enough to justhave them written down somewhere
.
Companies need to actuallytrain employees on what those
policies mean.
What constitutes inappropriatebehavior.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
How to report any concerns they have.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
You're saying it needs to be more than just words
on paper.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Right.
It's about creating a culturewhere everyone understands the
rules of the game and feelsempowered to speak up if they
see those rules being broken.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
And, I think, having diverse leadership teams can
also go a long way towardfostering a more inclusive
workplace.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
First, leadership teams can also go a long way
toward fostering a moreinclusive workplace.
Absolutely.
If the people in chargerepresent a wider range of
backgrounds and experiences,they're more likely to be
sensitive to the needs of allemployees.
Makes sense, and anothercrucial element is making sure
employees feel comfortablereporting concerns without fear
of retaliation, yeah.
Right Without fear ofretaliation.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
That means having multiple avenues for reporting,
right, not just relying on asingle HR department or a
manager who might be part of theproblem.
You know, listening to all this, I can't help but think about
(14:56):
the role technology plays, yes,in both amplifying and
mitigating these challenges.
Oh, that's such a great point.
Yeah, technology is adouble-edged sword when it comes
to discrimination.
Yeah, on the one hand, socialmedia has given a voice to those
who've experienceddiscrimination.
Right, you know, they can callout bad behavior, hold companies
accountable in ways thatweren't possible before.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
It's a whole new level of transparency.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
It is.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
But I guess the flip side is that technology can also
perpetuate those existingbiases.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Exactly.
We've seen how algorithms andAI can actually reinforce
existing inequalities Right,sometimes with discriminatory
outcomes.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So we need to be really thoughtful about how we
design and use technology.
Absolutely, it's not a neutraltool.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
It reflects the values and biases, yes, of the
people who created it.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Exactly, and I think, as technology continues to
evolve, we need to be even morevigilant about ensuring that
it's used to promote fairnessand equality.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
So this case, even though it ended in a settlement,
really highlights that creatinga truly equitable workplace
requires constant effort andvigilance.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
It does.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
It's not a one-time fix.
It's an ongoing process.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
I couldn't agree more .
It's a journey we all need tobe a part of.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Not just lawmakers and employers, but every single
one of us.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Well said, and I think that's a great note to end
on.
This case shows that the fightfor equality is far from over,
but it also gives us hope thatprogress is possible far from
over, but it also gives us hopethat progress is possible it
does To our listener.
Thank you for sharing thesedocuments with us.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
It's been a fascinating deep dive into a
really complex issue.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
It has.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
We hope you learned something new.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And maybe it's even sparked some new ideas for you
to explore.
Yeah, until next time, keepdiving deep.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Keep diving.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Keep asking questions .
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Ask those questions and keep the.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!