The federal lawsuit filed by attorney Rebecca Brazzano against Thompson Hine LLP, a nationally recognized BigLaw firm, offers a rare glimpse into how gender discrimination and retaliation can allegedly become embedded within elite legal institutions. The decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to allow key claims to proceed in public court—despite the firm’s attempt to compel arbitration—marks a significant development in the post-EFAA legal landscape.
Please note: All facts recounted below are drawn from allegations made in a federal complaint. These allegations have not yet been proven, and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each legal claim in federal court.
Background: A Decade of Alleged Exclusion and Harassment
According to the Second Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, attorney Rebecca Brazzano joined the New York office of Thompson Hine LLP in 2008 as an of counsel in the firm’s Business Litigation Group. At the time, she alleges she was the only female attorney in that group and faced a professional environment that marginalized women from advancement and leadership roles.
Brazzano claims that from the outset of her tenure, she was subjected to a prolonged campaign of exclusion, unequal treatment, and gender-based hostility—conduct allegedly driven in large part by equity partner Richard Anthony De Palma. She accuses De Palma of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to sideline her professionally, including excluding her from client matters, making dismissive or demeaning remarks, and cultivating what she describes as a “locker room” culture within the office.
In one particularly disturbing 2012 incident—while De Palma was her direct supervisor—he allegedly summoned her to his office and, in describing pro bono work, told her it was “like getting jerked off by a judge.” Brazzano asserts that the remark was calculated to demean and humiliate her professionally. She also alleges that De Palma continued to monitor her whereabouts, made belittling comments at meetings, and fostered an environment that systematically diverted work to male colleagues.
Though she was elevated to income partner in 2013, Brazzano alleges the title was non-equity and largely symbolic—lacking voting rights, profit-sharing, or real influence. She contends that her exclusion from critical workstreams and leadership roles continued after her promotion.
Brazzano claims that she repeatedly reported De Palma’s conduct to firm leadership, including Deborah Zider Read, a former firm-wide managing partner, and Thomas Lawrence Feher, another senior equity partner who authored the firm’s response to her later EEOC charge. Despite being in positions of authority, both Read and Feher allegedly took no action to investigate or remediate the hostile work environment. According to Brazzano, despite knowledge of her concerns, their failure to intervene enabled De Palma’s conduct to persist for years and contributed to a broader culture of institutional neglect.
The complaint alleges that Thompson Hine LLP was aware of the discriminatory dynamics and failed to uphold its obligations to maintain a workplace free from harassment and retaliation. These allegations form the basis of her claims not just against individual actors but also against the firm itself for fostering, permitting, and failing to correct a gender-hostile work environment.
Thompson Hine: A Nationally Recognized Firm with a Public DEI Commitment
Thompson Hine LLP is a national law firm headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and several other cities. The firm represents Fortune 500 corporations, financial institutions, and other high-profile clients across various practice areas, including litigation, business transactions, and regulatory compliance. It has received industry recognition in rankings such as U.S. News & World Report’s Best Law Firms.
Publicly, Thompson Hine emphasizes its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The firm maintains several programs to promote workplace inclusion and supplier diversity, including initiatives to support the professional development of attorneys from underrepresented backgrounds. Its public materials highlight internal DEI awards and recruitment strategies designed to improve representation within the firm.
These initiatives are part of the firm’s branding as a forward-looking, socially responsible employer. However, the allegations raised in Brazzano v. Thompson Hine LLP raise questions about how those public commitments are experienced internally. According to the plaintiff, the firm failed to take action in response to repeated complaints of gender-based exclusion and harassment. The lawsuit suggests a potential disconnect between the firm’s external messaging and internal practices—particularly concerning gender equity and advancement within the partnership structure.
The case also underscores a broader industry concern: using non-equity or income partner titles with limited authority or participation in firm management. While such titles may imply status, they often come without equity partners’ financial or institutional power. Brazzano’s experience highlights how this hierarchy can complicate accountability, especially for women and others who are historically underrepresented in firm leadership.
Termination After Allegedly Speaking Out
In early 2022, Brazzano alleges she clashed with De Palma again over a disputed pro bono expense. Tensions escalated when she declined to approve the expense and later initiated an audit of the firm’s pro bono billing practices. Shortly after sending a firm-wide email asserting control over pro bono billing in the New York office, she claims she was asked to resign. Weeks later, Brazzano claims she was formally terminated.
Brazzano further alleges that Thompson Hine launched a “sham investigation” into gender issues in the New York office. At the same time, she was still employed—an effort she contends was designed to shield the firm from liability and retaliate against her scrutiny. Such actions, if true, would illustrate an institutional strategy of image management rather than accountability.
Legal Claims and the Motion to Compel Arbitration
Brazzano filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Index No. 1:24-cv-01420), alleging claims under multiple legal frameworks:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This federal law prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. It covers both hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The 2024 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision clarified that a plaintiff no longer needs to prove “significant harm” to prevail—mere discriminatory treatment tied to a protected class may suffice. To initiate a Title VII claim, employees must first file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged conduct. Once a Notice of Right to Sue is issued, plaintiffs have 90 days to file in federal court.
- New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL): A state-level civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination and harassment in employment and other areas. Since its 2019 amendments, the NYSHRL no longer requires that harassment be “severe or pervasive,” making it easier for plaintiffs to prevail. Claims must be filed with the Division of Human Rights within one year or brought in court within three years.
- New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL): As one of the most protective civil rights laws in the country, the NYCHRL allows plaintiffs to prevail by showing they were treated “less well” due to a protected characteristic such as gender, race, or sexual orientation. Unlike federal or state law, there is no need to prove that conduct was “severe or pervasive” to establish a hostile work environment. Claims may be brought directly in court within three years or filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) within one year. The NYCCHR provides an administrative process to investigate, mediate, and potentially prosecute violations, though filing with the agency may waive the right to pursue the claim in court later.
- New York Labor Law § 40 prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who raise concerns about workplace discrimination or harassment. Unlike Title VII or the NYSHRL, there is no need to file with an agency first—claims can be brought directly in court. The statute protects workers who engage in protected activity (such as reporting bias or misconduct) and experience adverse action. The statute of limitations is three years, and remedies may include reinstatement, back pay, and damages. It is often pled alongside other retaliation statutes to reinforce employee protections under New York law.
Brazzano also alleged aiding and abetting under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, holding individuals liable for encouraging unlawful conduct.
Dismissed Claims: Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Procedural Bars
While the court allowed Brazzano’s core claims of hostile work environment, sex discrimination, retaliation, and aiding and abetting to proceed, several other legal theories were dismissed in Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr.’s March 31, 2025, decision.
Post-Employment Defamation:
Brazzano alleged that Thompson Hine and its partners defamed her in the firm’s written response to her EEOC charge, specifically by stating she “got herself and the firm fired” and referring to her as a “heavy biller.” The court dismissed this claim, holding that the statements were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding—the EEOC investigation—and therefore were protected by absolute privilege under New York law. This legal doctrine bars defamation claims arising from statements made during official proceedings, even if the statements are allegedly false or harmful.Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED):
The court also dismissed Brazzano’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Under New York law, emotional distress claims based on negligent conduct are typically barred when the conduct at issue is intentional—as is the case with discrimination and harassment. The court found that the serious allegations were more appropriately addressed under intentional tort and statutory civil rights frameworks, not negligence theory.Time-Barred Allegations and Jurisdictional Limitations:
Some of Brazzano’s claims and factual allegations were also dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. Certain discrete events—particularly those occurring more than three years before the complaint was filed—were found to be untimely under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. While ongoing patterns of harassment may fall under the continuing violations doctrine, isolated or non-continuing acts outside the statutory window cannot serve as the basis for liability.
In addition, the court dismissed post-employment retaliation claims that were not grounded in statutory frameworks. To the extent Brazzano attempted to bring claims outside the scope of Title VII or New York’s human rights laws, the court found she had failed to establish a valid cause of action.
These rulings, while narrowing the case, leave intact the essential allegations—especially those connected to workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation—and preserve the lawsuit’s potential to test the boundaries of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) in the context of BigLaw.
Thompson Hine moved to compel arbitration under its partnership agreement. Brazzano argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA).
What Is the EFAA and Why It Matters
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) was signed into law on March 3, 2022, with broad bipartisan support. Sparked by the #MeToo movement and a growing demand for accountability, the law’s intent was clear: to restore survivors’ rights to seek justice in court rather than being silenced in closed-door arbitration proceedings.
The EFAA amended the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to prohibit the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in cases involving sexual assault or sexual harassment if the conduct occurred after the law’s effective date. In practical terms, this means that even if a worker previously signed an arbitration agreement as part of their employment, they can no longer be compelled into arbitration for claims of sexual harassment or assault arising after March 3, 2022.
This legal shift is particularly significant in industries like law, finance, and tech, where mandatory arbitration has long served as a shield for institutional misconduct. The EFAA ensures that survivors can choose to bring their claims into the public light of the courtroom—where accountability, precedent, and transparency matter.
Judge Carter’s Ruling and Surviving Legal Claims
The Court held that the plaintiff, attorney Rebecca Brazzano, had plausibly alleged that her termination was part of a broader hostile work environment fueled by ongoing gender-based harassment. As such, her claims fell squarely within the protections of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). The court rejected the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, ruling that claims tied to sexual harassment occurring after the EFAA’s effective date could not be forced into private arbitration, even if the plaintiff had signed a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.
The court’s ruling preserves the core of Brazzano’s legal challenge and sets an important precedent for applying the EFAA to alleged workplace misconduct in elite legal settings. Following its analysis, the court permitted the following claims to proceed in federal court:
Hostile Work Environment
Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)
The court found that Brazzano plausibly alleged a workplace atmosphere that was discriminatory, offensive, and demeaning based on her gender. The conduct included exclusion from assignments, inappropriate comments—such as the now-infamous “jerked off by a judge” remark allegedly made by defendant Richard Anthony De Palma—and a pattern of marginalization. The allegations, if proven, supported a claim of a hostile environment against De Palma and Thompson under all three statutes. Title VII only applies to Thompson.
Sex Discrimination
Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL
Brazzano alleged that male attorneys received more favorable work opportunities, client access, and professional support, while she was systematically excluded. Judge Carter found these claims are sufficient to state a cause of action against De Palma and Thompson for sex-based disparate treatment. Title VII only applies to Thompson.
Retaliation
Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and New York Labor Law § 40
The court found that Brazzano adequately alleged that her termination was retaliatory, notably after she raised concerns regarding gender bias and challenged pro bono billing practices connected to De Palma. She claimed this scrutiny led to internal friction and her dismissal. The court ruled these allegations sufficient to proceed under federal and state anti-retaliation statutes. Title VII only applies to Thompson.
Aiding and Abetting Discrimination and Retaliation
NYSHRL and NYCHRL
In addition to De Palma, the court allowed aiding and abetting claims to proceed against Deborah Zider Read and Thompson. Brazzano alleged that both were aware of her complaints but failed to take corrective action, effectively enabling the alleged misconduct. Under New York law, individuals may be liable if they actively participate in or facilitate discriminatory or retaliatory conduct.
These surviving claims present a serious challenge to Thompson, De Palma, and Read, allowing Brazzano to proceed to discovery and trial on the merits of her allegations.
Other High-Profile Cases in BigLaw
Brazzano’s lawsuit is not an isolated incident. Several recent cases involving prominent law firms have exposed similar allegations of gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and structural inequities within elite legal institutions:
- Kerrie Campbell v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP In 2016, partner Kerrie Campbell filed a $100 million class action lawsuit against Chadbourne & Parke, alleging systemic pay disparities and the exclusion of women from firm leadership. The case brought national attention to gender equity gaps in partner compensation and was later settled confidentially in 2018.
- Former Kirkland & Ellis Associate v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP A 2024 lawsuit filed by a former associate against Kirkland & Ellis alleges gender discrimination, retaliation, and pay inequity. The plaintiff claims she faced disproportionate scrutiny after raising concerns internally, despite the firm’s public diversity commitments. The case remains pending but underscores how reputationally prestigious firms may still face serious internal equity challenges.
- Non-Equity Partner v. Duane Morris LLP In 2024, a non-equity partner at Duane Morris sued the firm for gender discrimination and retaliation related to her stalled advancement. The complaint alleges exclusion from leadership decisions and inequitable treatment compared to male peers. The firm denies wrongdoing, but the case raises questions about how partnership tiers may obscure real power disparities for women attorneys.
- Anisha Mehta v. DLA Piper LLP: Also in 2023, Anisha Mehta, a South Asian seventh-year associate at DLA Piper, filed a pregnancy discrimination suit after being terminated shortly after submitting maternity leave paperwork. Despite prior raises and bonuses, Mehta alleges the firm cited vague performance issues and that her termination was financially motivated. She also criticized the firm’s representation of gender diversity through inflated contract partner numbers. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York and remains pending.
If You’re Facing Similar Conduct, You’re Not Alone
If you are experiencing workplace sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation—especially within a legal or professional services setting—know that you are not alone. Allegations like those raised in Brazzano v. Thompson Hine LLP and other high-profile BigLaw cases underscore a larger pattern of inequity that too often goes unaddressed until litigation forces transparency.
At The Sanders Firm, P.C., we offer free and confidential consultations to help you understand your rights, evaluate your legal options, and determine the best path forward. We have over two decades of experience advocating for professionals in high-stakes environments and are committed to holding institutions accountable.
Contact us today if you believe your rights may have been violated.
Read the Second Amended Complaint