What happens when a toxic workplace culture collides with the legal system? Join us as we unpack the groundbreaking lawsuit filed by Diana Toomey against One Equity Partners (OEP), a Manhattan private equity firm, that challenges the very foundations of forced arbitration in the workplace. This episode of the Employee Survival Guide® dives deep into the alarming allegations of harassment and discrimination that Toomey faced, revealing an archaic mindset on gender roles and a glaring absence of adequate HR support that has left many employees feeling powerless.
Mark Carey and his co-host navigate the intricate legal landscape surrounding Toomey’s case, discussing the implications of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) and its potential to reshape employee rights in the face of corporate resistance. With forced arbitration often silencing victims of workplace discrimination, this episode sheds light on the pressing need for change and employee empowerment within the realms of employment law. Discover how Toomey’s fight against gender discrimination and harassment could set a precedent for future workplace disputes and the importance of understanding your rights as an employee.
From the challenges of proving sexual harassment under current laws to the ramifications of corporate arbitration agreements, we break down the complexities that every employee should be aware of. Whether you’re navigating a hostile work environment, dealing with retaliation, or facing discrimination based on sex, race, or disability, this episode offers crucial insights into your rights and the resources available to you.
As we explore the realities of severance negotiations and employment contracts, we also highlight the importance of advocating for a healthier workplace culture that prioritizes employee well-being and fair treatment. Tune in for insider tips on navigating employment law issues, understanding workplace policies, and empowering yourself in a system that often feels stacked against you. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn how to survive and thrive in your career, because knowledge is power and your voice matters.
Are you ready to take charge of your workplace experience? Listen now and equip yourself with the tools to navigate the complexities of employment disputes, workplace discrimination, and the ever-evolving landscape of employee rights. This is more than just a podcast; it’s your guide to surviving and thriving in today’s challenging work environment.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
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.
Transcript:
Speaker #0
Hey, it’s Mark here, and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more.
Speaker #1
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, it’s absolute best legal shield.
Speaker #2
Right. Because usually when we look at corporate lawsuits, we kind of expect a certain clinical dryness. Yeah,
Speaker #1
exactly. Like non-competes, revenue spreadsheets, standard breach of contract stuff.
Speaker #2
Yeah. Just the usual, you know, cost of doing business disputes that get handled super quietly.
Speaker #1
But today we’ve got a stack of legal documents that completely, I mean, they just shattered that expectation. We’re looking at a 2024 civil complaint, a federal court opinion from February 2026. A notice of appeal for March 2026.
Speaker #2
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 #1
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 #2
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 #1
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 #2
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker #1
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 #2
Right. These are not proven facts in a court of law yet.
Speaker #1
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.
Speaker #2
We’re just following the paper trail to understand the structural and legal mechanisms at play.
Speaker #1
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 #2
Yeah, Diana Toomey is a hot… 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 #1
Right. She has a 20 year resume.
Speaker #2
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 #1
Which is major. I mean, a senior EA at that level It’s essentially an operational linchpin. You’re the gatekeeper.
Speaker #2
Exactly.
Speaker #1
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 #2
And it seems to emanate straight from the C-suite, which is wild.
Speaker #1
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 #2
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.
Speaker #1
Oh, wow.
Speaker #2
Yeah. It also alleges, he said at a firm event, that men outperform women at real schools like Harvard.
Speaker #1
And it wasn’t just verbal, right? The complaint alleges unwanted physical contact, too.
Speaker #2
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 #1
Which is so uncomfortable. And then the filings also bring in the current president, Greg Belenfonte.
Speaker #2
Yes. The allegations there are that Belenfonte categorically refused to meet one-on-one with women behind closed doors.
Speaker #1
Because he viewed it as, what was the quote, an invitation to a lawsuit.
Speaker #2
Exactly. Which is just a fascinating corporate mindset to actually see documented in a lawsuit.
Speaker #1
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 #2
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 #1
That’s just jarring. It’s like imagine pulling a highly skilled sous 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 #2
That’s a great analogy, actually.
Speaker #1
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 #2
Well, and that brings us to maybe the biggest structural shocker in the entire stack of documents. Yeah. According to the complaint, OEP didn’t even have an HR department.
Speaker #1
Wait, at all? None?
Speaker #2
Zero. No HR department whatsoever.
Speaker #1
How is it even possible for a massive Manhattan private equity firm? Is that legal?
Speaker #2
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 #1
Right. Because who do you talk to?
Speaker #2
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 #1
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 #2
It always does. Executive behavior sets the tone for the whole office.
Speaker #1
Which perfectly transitions into how Toomey’s peers allegedly treated her.
Speaker #2
Yeah, the co-worker dynamics described here are just severe. For example, Toomey was supposed to help plan the annual general meeting at the Lottie Palace.
Speaker #1
And with her hospitality background, that should have been her moment to shine.
Speaker #2
Right, a prime opportunity. But she alleges that veteran EAs O’Connell and Kim Pareka completely furs her out. They supposedly… reduced her role to just fetching food.
Speaker #1
And unfortunately, the professional exclusion was just the tip of the iceberg because the documents outlined this severe barrage of racial and ethnic bigotry.
Speaker #2
It’s really heavy stuff. O’Connell allegedly called Arab Americans cheap and disgusting.
Speaker #1
She allegedly called Toomey a dirty terrorist.
Speaker #2
Yes. 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 #1
It’s just so blatant. And it wasn’t just directed at Toomey.
Speaker #2
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 Belenfonte as a cheap Jamaican.
Speaker #1
Didn’t she also say something about a black colleague?
Speaker #2
Yeah. She allegedly accused a black colleague of faking a family illness to go on vacation, saying that’s what her people do.
Speaker #1
Just staggering and layered on top of all this racial hostility. were these intensely physical gendered insults.
Speaker #2
Right. Back to Cashin, the former president. He allegedly asked the office, don’t we prefer skinny EAs over fat EAs?
Speaker #0
Oh, man.
Speaker #2
And he apparently made a similar comment about thin versus fat employees over cupcakes at an office birthday party.
Speaker #1
And Toomey’s co-workers allegedly commented on her ethnic features, too, mocking her dark, thick eyebrows.
Speaker #2
And O’Connell repeatedly referred to Toomey as a bitch, which, again, is a highly gendered. term.
Speaker #1
We have to talk about the physical toll this takes on a person.
Speaker #2
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 #1
Which O’Connell allegedly openly mocked her for.
Speaker #2
Yeah, laughing and mimicking the tick. It’s awful.
Speaker #1
It sounds completely unbearable. But, you know, reading through this, I actually found myself pushing back on the timeline a bit.
Speaker #2
How so?
Speaker #1
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 #2
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 #1
Okay, wait, how do you excel in that kind of environment?
Speaker #2
She must have been incredible. Incredible at compartmentalizing. The documents show she got glowing year-end reviews. She received the maximum 20% bonuses.
Speaker #1
Wow.
Speaker #2
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 #1
So she’s getting all this top-tier financial validation while simultaneously enduring. profound psychological distress.
Speaker #2
Exactly. But you can only sustain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long, it inevitably reaches a breaking point.
Speaker #1
Right. Which leads to her finally trying to use those non-existent HR channels.
Speaker #2
First, she complains to her boss, David Lippin.
Speaker #1
Who, according to the complaint, basically brushes it off, says he’s busy.
Speaker #2
Right. So then she goes to Grace Ma, visibly in tears.
Speaker #1
And this part is incredible to me. Mar allegedly admits she knows all about the abuse, but she actively advises Toomey not to complain.
Speaker #2
Her reasoning was that O’Connell was protected by the president, Bill Infante. So Ma essentially tells Toomey, just keep your head down and endure it.
Speaker #1
Which is terrible advice legally and morally. So when informal channels fail, she has to escalate.
Speaker #2
Yes. In March 2024, Toomey officially complains to the chief operating auditor, Dora Stochka. She reports the years of abuse, provides a written summary, and Stochka promises a full investigation.
Speaker #1
But shocker, the investigation never happens. Instead, Stochka allegedly avoids her. And then on April 19th, 2024. Stochka fires her.
Speaker #2
Claiming she was no longer a good fit and that nobody really liked her.
Speaker #1
OK, 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.
Speaker #2
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 #1
Which is nearly impossible when she has a documented history of max bonuses and glowing reviews.
Speaker #2
Exactly. But the filings allege something even more damaging, an actual smoking gun.
Speaker #1
Let’s hear it.
Speaker #2
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.
Speaker #1
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.
Speaker #2
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 #1
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 #2
Right. The motion to compel arbitration, which brings us to the core legal dispute.
Speaker #1
So let’s explain the Federal Arbitration Act, or the FAA, really quickly. For decades, it’s heavily favored enforcing these arbitration contracts.
Speaker #2
Yeah. Corporations love them. You sign it 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 #1
A private arbitrator decides the outcome and all the company’s internal emails stay sealed.
Speaker #2
It’s the ultimate corporate shield.
Speaker #1
But then enter the plot twist, the ending forced arbitration act, the EFAA.
Speaker #2
This federal law. That changes everything. It allows employees to bypass mandatory arbitration entirely, but only if their dispute relates to sexual harassment or sexual assault.
Speaker #1
So that sets up the central multimillion 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 #2
Exactly. Because if it does, the EFAA applies and OEP is forced into a public trial.
Speaker #1
OK, so here’s where I want to push back a bit. It’s just playing devil’s advocate for it.
Speaker #2
Go for it.
Speaker #1
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 #2
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 #1
Like the Singh case, right?
Speaker #2
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 #1
So under that standard, Toomey’s case would be forced into secret arbitration.
Speaker #2
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 #1
So what does she do? How does she rule?
Speaker #2
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 #1
Remind me, why does a city law mandate matter in a federal court decision like this?
Speaker #2
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 #1
Oh, interesting. So she has to take the broadest interpretation.
Speaker #2
Right. And under that broad umbrella, the ruling states that sexual harassment simply means unwanted verbal or physical behavior based on gender.
Speaker #1
Based on gender, period. No sexual events required.
Speaker #2
Not at all. So applying that to Toomey’s case, Cashin’s unwanted shoulder touching, his comments about unintellectual jobs and skinny EAs.
Speaker #1
And O’Connell using the word bitch.
Speaker #2
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 #1
That is massive. Yeah. So because she plausibly alleged sexual harassment under this broad definition, the EFAA applies.
Speaker #2
OEP’s motion to compel arbitration is completely denied.
Speaker #1
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 #2
It is a massive victory for plaintiffs. It’s a huge loophole out of forced arbitration.
Speaker #1
But OEP isn’t going down without a fight.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
Right. I mean, the immediate aftermath is that on March 20, 2026, they filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.
Speaker #2
Oh, yeah. They want that narrower Singh standard back because the implications for the corporate sector are terrifying for them.
Speaker #1
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.
Speaker #2
It fundamentally alters corporate risk.
Speaker #1
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 #2
They almost have to, right?
Speaker #1
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 #2
It really is an entirely new frontier of corporate liability.
Speaker #1
It’s going to be fascinating to watch. Thank you so much for joining the conversation.
Speaker #0
If you like the Employee Survival Guide, I’d really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that’s informative, that’s timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you’d like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I’ll keep it up. I’ll keep the standards up. I’ll keep the information flowing at you. If you’d like to send me an email and ask me a question, I’ll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to MCAReY at CAPCLaw.com. That’s CAPCLaw.com.