A former property administrator has filed suit against Cushman & Wakefield in the Southern District of New York, alleging months of sexual harassment by a line supervisor, a closed internal investigation that produced neither findings nor corrective action, and a retaliation sequence that culminated in her termination on 1 May 2024. The complaint, lodged in federal court in Manhattan on 25 June 2026, is instructive not for the alleged conduct itself but for the employer response it describes at each stage.
According to the filing, the claimant joined Cushman & Wakefield in approximately March 2023 and reported her supervisor’s conduct — which she says included repeated comments on her age and appearance, unwanted physical contact, and the instruction to “spin” in his office — to both her property manager and an HR representative. The company opened an internal process that, the complaint alleges, was closed around December 2023 without findings, without corrective action, and without any documentation being produced to the complainant. The supervisor, the filing states, remains employed at the firm.
What practitioners advising employers on internal investigations will find significant is the retaliation chronology the complaint maps out. Following her disclosures, the claimant was reportedly reassigned to report to a supervisor personally close to the man she had accused, subjected to multiple daily check-in requirements, issued disciplinary warnings, and placed on a performance improvement plan — none of which, the filing says, applied before she raised the harassment allegation. In April 2024, the complaint alleges, Cushman & Wakefield advertised her position before her improvement plan had concluded. Her employment ended weeks later.
The claim carries an additional wage dimension. The complaint asserts that between approximately March 2023 and March 2024, the claimant regularly worked around 49 hours per week — at an hourly rate rising from $31.25 to $32.00 — but was compensated only for 40, with no overtime paid. Her supervisor, the filing contends, was present during those additional hours and was aware of them.
The lawsuit advances claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, alongside a count for negligent training and supervision. Employment counsel advising US-facing businesses will note that the negligent supervision count turns the spotlight from individual conduct to systemic employer failure — a framing that is increasingly common in high-value harassment litigation and one that sits uneasily with documented gaps in investigation procedure.
The allegations are untested and no court has ruled on the merits. Cushman & Wakefield has not publicly responded to the complaint. What the filing illustrates, however, is the exposure that accrues when an employer’s documented response to a harassment report consists of inaction followed by a disciplinary sequence directed at the complainant.
Employment teams at firms including Eversheds Sutherland and Littler Mendelson, which advise large real estate and professional services clients on US employment compliance, will likely treat the case as a reference point for auditing the procedural integrity of internal investigation protocols and the documentation trails they leave behind.