Refusing to Settle Can Be Protected Activity: A Look at the Second Circuit’s Newton v. LVMH Decision

On September 21, 2026, the Second Circuit issued an important decision concerning workplace retaliation in Newton v. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. The court held that an employee who declines her employer’s invitation to negotiate a settlement of her pending discrimination claims may be engaging in protected activity under federal, state, and city law. The ruling has implications for both employees and employers in New York.

The Background

Andowah Newton, an attorney, worked at LVMH for years. She alleged that a company director sexually harassed and assaulted her at work and then retaliated against for reporting it. She sued in state court in 2019, but the court sent the case to arbitration under an agreement she had signed when she was hired. She continued to speak out publicly, including in testimony before Congress in 2021.

In August 2022, LVMH’s new Chief Legal Officer asked to meet with Newton one-on-one, without attorneys present, to discuss settling her claims. According to her complaint, she declined or did not respond. After that, she alleges, Pratt’s treatment of her changed. She was required to get pre-approval before speaking at outside events, was ignored in meetings, and was excluded from office gatherings. On December 1, 2022, LVMH fired Newton.

The district court dismissed her federal retaliation lawsuit. It reasoned that turning down a settlement meeting was not protected activity. The Second Circuit disagreed.

Why Refusing to Settle Can Be “Opposition”

Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law all prohibit retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination, which courts refer to as engaging in protecting activity. The Second Circuit explained that opposition covers “any activity designed to resist or antagonize; to contend against; to confront; resist; or withstand discrimination.”

The court’s reasoning was straightforward. Filing a discrimination claim is unquestionably protected because it asserts that the employee was wronged. If starting a claim is an assertion of that belief, then declining to abandon the claim in exchange for a settlement can be a continuation of the same assertion. The question is whether the employer understood, or reasonably could have understood, that the refusal reflected the employee’s continued opposition to unlawful conduct.

The court also pointed out the flaw in the employer’s position. Under LVMH’s reading of the law, a supervisor could announce that he was firing an employee because she wouldn’t settle her discrimination case, and she would still have no retaliation claim. The court found that result inconsistent with the text and purpose of Title VII.

Context Is Everything

The court stressed that context decides the question. By August 2022, Newton had been publicly asserting her claims for more than three years through a state lawsuit, arbitration, and congressional testimony. Given that history, the employer could reasonably have understood her refusal as a sign that she still believed she had been wronged and wanted redress.

The court distinguished cases in which employees refused to sign releases before ever raising a discrimination complaint. In those cases, the employer had no notice that the refusal was connected to opposition to discrimination. Here, the employer knew exactly what Newton believed.

The court also said an employee need not explicitly state that she is refusing in order to keep objecting to discrimination. Implicit opposition can be enough if it puts the employer on notice. The court held that even a failure to respond to the settlement request could plausibly qualify.

Causation: Four Months is Sufficient Evidence

Newton’s refusal occurred in August 2022 and her termination came on December 1, 2022, a gap of up to four months. The court noted that it has never drawn a bright line rule for how much time is too much, and that gaps of several weeks to several months, including four or five months, have supported an inference of causation in earlier cases.

Newton also did not rely on timing alone. She alleged a pattern of hostility between her refusal and her firing, and she alleged that her termination was staged to humiliate her, including a highly unusual mandatory team meeting scheduled right after she was fired. The court held that timing combined with this alleged “drumbeat” of antagonism was enough to plead causation, even where individual acts might not amount to adverse actions on their own.

An Important Caveat

This is not a blanket rule. The court stated that its holding does not establish that refusing to settle always counts as opposition, and that it expressed no view on whether Newton can prove her case at summary judgment or trial. At this stage she only had to plead a plausible claim, and she did.

Talk to Us

If you believe you have been retaliated against for raising discrimination concerns, or for standing your ground in a dispute with your employer, the attorneys at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC can help you understand your rights. Contact us for a consultation at (631) 352-0050 or on the web at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

This post is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The original case decision is available here.