A Workplace Insult With Huge Stakes

SPEAKER_00 0:18

Welcome to the Employee Survival Guide, produced by employment attorney Mark Carey. So imagine a single word, you know, just a really common, ugly workplace insult, literally costing a multi-billion dollar private equity firm its absolute best legal shield.

SPEAKER_01 0:33

Aaron Powell Right. Because usually when we look at corporate lawsuits, we kind of expect a certain clinical dryness, right?

SPEAKER_00 0:38

Yeah, exactly. Like non-competes, revenue spreadsheets, standard breach of contract stuff.

SPEAKER_01 0:43

Aaron Powell Yeah, just the usual, you know, cost of doing business disputes that get handled super quietly.

SPEAKER_00 0:48

Aaron Powell But today we've got a stack of legal documents that completely I mean they just shatter that expectation. We're looking at a 2024 civil complaint, a federal court opinion from February 2026, and a notice of appeal for March 2026.

SPEAKER_01 1:03

Aaron Powell All of which center around a really fascinating lawsuit filed by Diana Toomey against her former employer, the Manhattan firm, one equity partners, or OEP.

SPEAKER_00 1:11

Aaron Powell Right. And our mission for this session is to explore how a culture that reads like honestly, a 1950s boys club is colliding with a 2022 federal law called the Ending Forced Arbitration Act or the EFAA.

SPEAKER_01 1:22

Aaron Powell Which is such a massive shift. I mean, it's a collision that is fundamentally changing how employment disputes are handled across the board.

SPEAKER_00 1:30

Yeah, we're basically watching this relatively new piece of legislation act as a jurisdictional master key, right? Just unlocking the doors to public federal courts for potentially thousands of plaintiffs.

SPEAKER_01 1:41

Oh, absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 1:42

Now, before we jump into all of this, we really need to give you a quick reminder. Everything we are unpacking today comes directly from the allegations in Diana Toomey's complaint.

SPEAKER_01 1:52

Aaron Powell Right. These are not proven facts in a court of law yet.

SPEAKER_00 1:54

Aaron Powell Exactly. We are just impartially looking at the claims exactly as they're presented in the legal documents. We're not taking size. We're just, you know, observing the legal machinery at work here.

Who Diana Toomey Is

SPEAKER_01 2:04

Aaron Powell We're just following the paper trail to understand the structural and legal mechanisms at play.

SPEAKER_00 2:10

Aaron Powell Spot on. So let's start with the plaintiff herself. Because to understand the legal battle, we really need to understand who she is and well, the environment she alleges she walked into.

SPEAKER_01 2:20

Aaron Powell Yeah. Diana Toomey is a highly experienced executive assistant. She is a woman of Lebanese Arab descent, and you know, she's not some recent grad trying to find her footing.

SPEAKER_00 2:31

Right. She has a 20-year resume.

SPEAKER_01 2:33

A very impressive one. Her background indicates someone very accustomed to demanding high-stakes environments. The documents note she worked at a five-star Ritz-Carlton, and she was a senior EA for top-tier executives at his market.

SPEAKER_00 2:46

Aaron Powell, which is major. I mean, a a senior EA at that level, it's essentially an operational linchpin. You're the gatekeeper.

SPEAKER_01 2:53

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 2:53

So she arrives at OEP in June 2022, clearly possessing the skills to thrive, and she's seated next to a veteran EA named Maureen O'Connell. But according to the complaint, almost immediately she just runs into this wall of hostility.

SPEAKER_01 3:06

Aaron Powell And it seems to emanate straight from the C-suite, which is wild.

SPEAKER_00 3:10

It is. The filings detail some pretty astonishing allegations against the top brass, starting with the president at the time, Dick Cashin, who is now the chairman.

SPEAKER_01 3:17

Right. The complaint claims Cashin openly espoused these highly archaic views. Like he allegedly stated that women belong in unintellectual jobs, referring to Toomey's role. Oh, wow. Yeah. It also alleges, he said at a firm event, that men outperform women at real schools like Harvard.

Alleged C-Suite Sexism And Boundaries

SPEAKER_00 3:37

And it wasn't just verbal, right? The complaint alleges unwanted physical contact, too.

SPEAKER_01 3:42

It does. Toomey's legal team claims Cashin would periodically stand by her desk, place his hand firmly on her shoulder, and just make comments about her performance.

SPEAKER_00 3:52

Which is so uncomfortable. And then the filings also bring in the current president, Greg Belenfonte.

SPEAKER_01 3:56

Trevor Burrus, Jr. Yes. The allegations there are that Belenfonte categorically refused to meet one-on-one with women behind closed doors. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 4:02

Because he viewed it as what was the quote, an invitation to a lawsuit. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 4:06

Exactly. Which is just a fascinating corporate mindset to actually see documented in a lawsuit.

SPEAKER_00 4:11

It really is. And there's that one specific incident, right, where he allegedly refused to ride in a car service with a woman.

SPEAKER_01 4:16

Aaron Powell Yeah, a firm-paid car service. The complaint says he refused to ride with a junior female staffer and it left her literally in tears on the sidewalk.

SPEAKER_00 4:25

That's just jarring. It's like imagine pulling a highly skilled Sioux chef out of a modern Michelin star kitchen where everything is precision and respect, and just dropping them onto a chaotic 1950s era trading floor.

SPEAKER_01 4:40

That's a great analogy, actually.

SPEAKER_00 4:42

But it makes you wonder if you're working there and executives are openly operating this way, how does a standard HR department even begin to address that?

SPEAKER_01 4:51

Well, and that brings us to maybe the biggest structural shocker in the entire stack of documents.

SPEAKER_00 4:56

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 4:56

According to the complaint, OEP didn't even have an HR department.

SPEAKER_00 5:00

Wait, at all? None. Zero. No HR department whatsoever. Aaron Powell, How is it even possible for a massive Manhattan private equity firm? Is that legal?

SPEAKER_01 5:09

I mean, it's not strictly illegal, no, but it is incredibly rare for a firm of that size because of the massive liability it invites.

SPEAKER_00 5:15

Right. Because who do you talk to?

SPEAKER_01 5:17

Exactly. Without HR, you have no neutral mechanism for reporting grievances. You have no formalized training, no buffer between executives and staff. So employees were supposedly just left to report issues to the chief operating officer or their direct bosses.

SPEAKER_00 5:33

Aaron Powell Wow. So there are literally no guardrails. And you know, when a C-suite operates in a vacuum like that, the culture inevitably bleeds downward.

SPEAKER_01 5:41

Aaron Powell It always does. Executive behavior sets the tone for the whole office.

SPEAKER_00 5:45

Aaron Powell Which perfectly transitions into how Toomey's peers allegedly treated her.

Alleged Racist Abuse And Exclusion

SPEAKER_01 5:49

Aaron Powell Yeah. The coworker dynamics described here are just severe. For example, Toomey was supposed to help plan the annual general meeting at the Lottie Palace.

SPEAKER_00 5:56

Aaron Powell And with her hospitality background, that should have been her moment to shine.

SPEAKER_01 6:00

Aaron Powell Right, a prime opportunity. But she alleges that veteran EAs O'Connell and Kim Pereka completely furs her out. They supposedly reduced her role to just fetching food.

SPEAKER_00 6:10

And unfortunately, the professional exclusion was just the tip of the iceberg, because the documents outline this severe barrage of racial and ethnic bigotry.

SPEAKER_01 6:18

It's really heavy stuff. O'Connell allegedly called Arab Americans cheap and disgusting.

SPEAKER_00 6:24

She allegedly called Toomey a dirty terrorist.

SPEAKER_01 6:27

Res. And there's even a detail where Toomey ordered Lebanese food from Naya, a popular restaurant, and O'Connell supposedly called it terrorist food.

SPEAKER_00 6:35

It's just so blatant. And it wasn't just directed at Toomie.

SPEAKER_01 6:38

No. The filings paint O'Connell as an equal opportunity offender, basically. She allegedly called a partner, David Lippin, a cheap Jew and referred to President Belenfonti as a cheap Jamaican.

SPEAKER_00 6:51

Didn't she also say something about a black colleague?

SPEAKER_01 6:53

Yeah. She allegedly accused a black colleague of faking a family illness to go on vacation, saying that's what her people do.

SPEAKER_00 7:00

Just staggering. And layered on top of all this racial hostility were these intensely physical gendered insults. Right.

SPEAKER_01 7:07

Back to Cashin, the former president. He allegedly asked the office, don't we prefer skinny EAs over fat EAs?

SPEAKER_00 7:14

Oh man.

SPEAKER_01 7:15

And he apparently made a similar comment about thin versus fat employees over cupcakes at an office birthday party.

SPEAKER_00 7:21

And Toomey's co-workers allegedly commented on her ethnic features too, mocking her dark, thick eyebrows.

SPEAKER_01 7:28

And O'Connell repeatedly referred to Toomie as a bitch, which again is a highly gendered term.

SPEAKER_00 7:34

We have to talk about the physical toll this takes on a person.

SPEAKER_01 7:37

We really do. The documents state that Toomey developed severe anxiety and debilitating panic attacks. The stress was so bad it manifested physically as a throat clearing tick.

SPEAKER_00 7:48

Which O'Connell allegedly openly mocked her for.

SPEAKER_01 7:51

Yeah, laughing and mimicking the tick. It's awful.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

It sounds completely unbearable. But, you know, reading through this, I actually found myself pushing back on the timeline a bit. How so? Well, if her daily reality was really this horrific, right? Panic attacks, being called a terrorist, why was she still there? With her resume, she could easily walk into another high-paying job.

SPEAKER_01 8:12

It's the most common question in these types of employment disputes, you know, why didn't you just leave? But the source material actually provides a fascinating paradox. She stayed because structurally, she was absolutely crushing the work itself. The filings show her professional output was exceptional despite everything.

SPEAKER_00 8:30

Okay, wait, how do you excel in that kind of environment?

SPEAKER_01 8:33

She must have been incredible at compartmentalizing. The documents show she got glowing year-in reviews. She received the maximum 20% bonuses. Wow. Her direct boss, David Lippin, was so impressed he wrote her a$1,000 personal check to thank her. And Grace Ma, the VP of Investor Relations, gave her a$300 Delta gift card for her excellence.

SPEAKER_00 8:57

So she's getting all this top-tier financial validation while simultaneously enduring profound psychological distress.

No HR Then The Complaint

SPEAKER_01 9:04

Exactly. But you can only sustain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long, it inevitably reaches a breaking point.

SPEAKER_00 9:10

Right, which leads to her finally trying to use those non-existent HR channels.

SPEAKER_01 9:14

First, she complains to her boss, David Lippin.

SPEAKER_00 9:16

Who, according to the complaint, basically brushes it off, says he's busy.

SPEAKER_01 9:19

Right. So then she goes to Grace Ma, visibly in tears.

SPEAKER_00 9:23

And this part is incredible to me. Ma allegedly admits she knows all about the abuse, but she actively advises Toomey not to complain.

SPEAKER_01 9:31

Her reasoning was that O'Connell was protected by the president, Bill Infanti. So Ma essentially tells Toomey, just keep your head down and endure it.

SPEAKER_00 9:39

Which is terrible advice, legally and morally. So when informal channels fail, she has to escalate.

SPEAKER_01 9:45

Yes. In March 2024, Toomy officially complains to the chief operating auditor, Doris Stogka. She reports the years of abuse, provides a written summary, and Stogka promises a full investigation.

SPEAKER_00 9:57

But shocker, the investigation never happens. Instead, Stogka allegedly avoids her. And then on April 19th, 2024, Stogka fires her.

SPEAKER_01 10:07

Claiming she was no longer a good fit and that nobody really liked her.

SPEAKER_00 10:11

Okay, I have to jump in here because from a corporate compliance standpoint, firing an employee three weeks after a formal discrimination complaint is I mean, that's a textbook retaliation trigger, right?

SPEAKER_01 10:20

Oh, it is an immense strategic error. It completely shifts the burden of proof. The company suddenly has to prove the firing wasn't retaliatory.

SPEAKER_00 10:27

Which is nearly impossible when she has a documented history of max bonuses and glowing reviews.

SPEAKER_01 10:32

Exactly. But the filings allege something even more damaging: an actual smoking gun.

SPEAKER_00 10:38

Let's hear it.

SPEAKER_01 10:39

On a follow-up call a few days later, Stojka allegedly told Toomey she would have had a long career there if she had just kept her head down and her mouth quiet.

Firing After Reporting Retaliation Trigger

SPEAKER_00 10:47

Aaron Powell Kept her mouth quiet. Wow. I mean, that right there is the catalyst. That alleged comment transitions the whole story from a workplace drama into a high-stakes federal legal battle. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 10:58

Because a month later, in May 2024, Toomey's lawyers file a massive civil complaint in federal court. They cite Section 1981, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

SPEAKER_00 11:11

And this is where the real legal showdown starts. Because OEP pulls a very common corporate maneuver here. They try to force the case out of public court and into secret arbitration based on her employment contract.

SPEAKER_01 11:23

Right. The motion to compel arbitration, which brings us to the core legal dispute.

SPEAKER_00 11:27

Aaron Powell So let's explain the Federal Arbitration Act, or the FAA, really quickly. For decades, it's heavily favored enforcing these arbitration contracts.

SPEAKER_01 11:34

Yeah. Corporations love them. You sign in on day one, usually without reading it, it's risk containment. Instead of a public jury trial with media, the dispute is moved behind closed doors.

SPEAKER_00 11:45

Aaron Ross Powell A private arbitrator decides the outcome, and all the company's internal emails stay sealed.

SPEAKER_01 11:50

It's the ultimate corporate shield.

SPEAKER_00 11:52

But then enter the plot twist. The Ending Forced Arbitration Act, the EFAA.

Forced Arbitration And The EFAA

SPEAKER_01 11:59

This federal law changes everything. It allows employees to bypass mandatory arbitration entirely, but only if their dispute relates to sexual harassment or sexual assault.

SPEAKER_00 12:08

So that sets up the central multi-million dollar legal question facing federal judge Margaret M. Garnett. Does Toomey's complaint actually allege sexual harassment under the New York City human rights law?

SPEAKER_01 12:20

Exactly. Because if it does, the EFAA applies and OEP is forced into a public trial.

SPEAKER_00 12:25

Okay, so here's what I want to push back a bit. Just playing devil's advocate for it.

SPEAKER_01 12:29

Sure, go for it.

SPEAKER_00 12:29

I look at these allegations, Cashin touching her shoulder, asking about skinny versus fat EAs, O'Connell calling her a bitch. It's horrible, blatant, gender-based bullying. But is it sexual harassment? I mean, there's no romantic advance here. No lewd sexual propositions. If we define any gendered insult as sexual harassment, doesn't that effectively break arbitration for almost any workplace bullying case?

SPEAKER_01 12:55

That is the exact question splitting federal judges in New York right now. It's a phenomenal point. And the source material highlights this division perfectly.

SPEAKER_00 13:03

Like the Singh case, right?

SPEAKER_01 13:04

Yes. In the Singh case, Judge Oatkin ruled exactly the way you just argued. He said the harassment must be romantic, sexual, or lewd to trigger the EFAA.

SPEAKER_00 13:13

Aaron Powell So under that standard, Toomey's case would be forced into secret arbitration.

SPEAKER_01 13:18

Absolutely. Pure hostility based on gender wasn't enough under Singh. But Judge Garnett had to decide which side of the legal fence to land on in her February 18th, 2026 opinion.

SPEAKER_00 13:29

So what does she do? How does she rule?

SPEAKER_01 13:30

She explicitly rejects the Singh standard. She aligns with another judge, Judge Woods, and relies on the mandate behind the New York City human rights law, the NYCHRL.

SPEAKER_00 13:40

Remind me, why does a city law mandate matter in a federal court decision like this?

SPEAKER_01 13:45

Aaron Powell Because New York courts are actually required by the City Council to interpret the NYCHRL as broadly and progressively as possible. It's designed to maximize civil rights protections.

SPEAKER_00 13:55

Oh, interesting. So she has to take the broadest interpretation.

Judge’s Ruling Appeal And What Changes

SPEAKER_01 13:58

Right. And under that broad umbrella, the ruling states that sexual harassment simply means unwanted verbal or physical behavior based on gender.

SPEAKER_00 14:06

Based on gender, period. No sexual events required.

SPEAKER_01 14:09

Not at all. So applying that to Toomey's case, Cashin's unwanted shoulder touching, his comments about unintellectual jobs and skinny EAs.

SPEAKER_00 14:19

And O'Connell using the word bitch.

SPEAKER_01 14:21

Exactly. Because bitch is a highly gendered term. Collectively, the judge says these actions rely on gendered expectations about women, so they meet the standard for sexual harassment.

SPEAKER_00 14:31

That is massive. So because she plausibly alleged sexual harassment under this broad definition, the EFAA applies. Wow. So the shield is broken. And this means the entire lawsuit, including all the racial and ethnic claims, gets to proceed in open court.

SPEAKER_01 14:50

It is a massive victory for plaintiffs. It's a huge loophole out of forced arbitration.

SPEAKER_00 14:55

Aaron Powell But OEP isn't going down without a fight. Right. Right. I mean the immediate aftermath is that on March 20, 2026, they filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.

SPEAKER_01 15:05

Oh yeah. They want that narrower Singh standard back because the implications for the corporate sector are terrifying for them.

SPEAKER_00 15:11

Aaron Powell Well, yeah. If a company's airtight arbitration agreement can be blown wide open just by the presence of gender-based insults, even without a sexual advance, that changes everything. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 15:23

It fundamentally alters corporate risk.

SPEAKER_00 15:24

Which leaves you with a really fascinating kind of broader question to chew on. If courts continue to rule that non-sexual gender-based bullying is enough to invalidate corporate arbitration agreements under the EFA, will we see corporations drastically change how they police everyday workplace banter?

SPEAKER_01 15:42

Trevor Burrus They almost have to, right?

SPEAKER_00 15:43

I mean, if they know that a single off-color joke about someone's weight or a single gendered insult like bitch could cost them their entire arbitration shield, how draconian will HR departments become to protect that bottom line?

SPEAKER_01 15:56

It really is an entirely new frontier of corporate liability.

SPEAKER_00 16:00

Aaron Powell It's gonna be fascinating to watch. Thank you so much for joining the conversation.