CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x
MARLA CRAWFORD, : SUMMONS
:
Plaintiff, : Plaintiff designates
v. : NEW YORK COUNTY
: as the place of trial
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., KAREN :
SEYMOUR, in her individual and professional capacities, : The basis of the venue is: Residence
and DARRELL CAFASSO, in his individual and : of Defendant(s) and a substantial part
professional capacities; : of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s
: claims took place in New York
Defendants. : County
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

To the above-named Defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.

Dated: October 26, 2020

New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

WIGDOR LLP

By: ____________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
David E. Gottlieb

85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
MARLA CRAWFORD, :
:
Plaintiff, : Index No.
v. :
:
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., KAREN : COMPLAINT
SEYMOUR, in her individual and professional :
capacities, and DARRELL CAFASSO, in his individual :
and professional capacities; : Jury Trial Demanded
:
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Plaintiff Marla Crawford, Esq. hereby alleges as follows:

“Let’s try to put this genie back in the bottle.”

- Karen Seymour, Esq., General Counsel, Goldman Sachs Group,

commenting on how the bank should cover-up allegations of
sexual misconduct by her recent hire of Darrell Cafasso, Esq. as
Head of Litigation.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action about the most senior in-house lawyers at The Goldman Sachs

Group, Inc. (“Goldman” or the “Bank”) – Karen Seymour, Esq. (General Counsel) and Darrell

Cafasso, Esq. (Global Head of Litigation) – completely disregarding their legal and ethical

obligations and permitting a workplace where sexual harassment is covered up and the powerful

are cloaked with immunity. Ms. Crawford – an Associate General Counsel – attempted to speak

up about misconduct – perpetrated by Mr. Cafasso – but the result was a broadside attack on her

performance and then terminating her after more than 10 years of exemplary performance. The

conduct at issue here calls into doubt all internal investigations done at Goldman and

demonstrates that the Bank and its senior leaders are only concerned with protecting themselves

and their executives, not the employees.

1
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

2. Mr. Cafasso, as Global Head of Litigation, is in a position of substantial power,

and he used that position to romantically prey upon a much younger and vulnerable female

colleague (referred to anonymously herein as “Jane Doe”) who worked in his group and reported

to him. Mr. Cafasso knew this Jane Doe would be susceptible to his advances and targeted her

for that reason – Jane Doe knew her performance needed improvement, she was dealing with

difficult personal matters outside of work, and Mr. Cafasso would exacerbate these matters

through encouraging her to drink alcohol during private offsite meetings. Mr. Cafasso is well

known to engage in excessive binge drinking at work-related functions, in violation of

Goldman’s policies.

3. Mr. Cafasso became so infatuated with Jane Doe and securing her affections that,

even though he had only known her for a brief period of time, he made declarations of love to

her as follows: “I have feelings for you I have never had for anyone else but my wife” “I

have these feelings for you,” and “I think I’m falling in love with you” – and these statements

were not reciprocated. Mr. Cafasso’s obsession with Jane Doe grew so strong that he even

blamed her for his misconduct, telling her “You’re a temptress” and “You’re the Devil’s

pawn.” Mr. Cafasso was not even subtle about using his position of power to advance his

misconduct, promising his subordinate job benefits if she would “return the favor.”

4. Predictably, Mr. Cafasso’s harassment create an untenable situation for this

female employee who was not interested in the form of attention Mr. Cafasso was providing and

did not share his intentions. The situation was made all the worse by the fact that Mr. Cafasso’s

wife found out about his conduct and called Jane Doe directly. Mr. Cafasso was eventually

forced to “come clean” and told Ms. Seymour about his conduct. Rather than address the

situation appropriately and engage in remedial discipline – including termination – for engaging

2
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

in such unacceptable conduct and horrific judgment, she did the opposite. Ms. Seymour and

Goldman then retained Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil Gotshal”) to conduct a bogus

investigation to quickly “sweep it under the rug.” Ms. Seymour even expressly told another

senior lawyer that it was a “sticky situation” and concluded: “Let’s try to put this genie back in

the bottle.”

5. And that is exactly what happened. Ms. Crawford, who was a confidant of Mr.

Cafasso’s victim and who would have been an obvious person to interview, was never

approached for information. Numerous others who would have been obvious interview subjects

were also not approached for their observations. In fact, when Ms. Crawford attempted to tell a

senior Human Capital Management (“HCM”) member that she had relevant information and was

surprised she was never interviewed, the response was that she should keep her mouth shut, not

speak about the matter and she was never questioned further. Within two weeks, Mr. Cafasso

was back to work as if nothing had happened, apparently with a stamp of approval from Weil

Gotshal that he had done nothing unlawful, unprofessional or otherwise.

6. Rather, it was Jane Doe, the harassed female subordinate, who never returned.

Jane Doe was represented by Gloria Allred, Esq. and she was likely paid a sum of money and

forced out of the Bank. Jane Doe was also likely forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement

preventing her from speaking about her experiences and requiring that she cooperate with

Goldman should the Bank ever be sued for conduct involving Mr. Cafasso. Having paid Jane

Doe to keep quiet and protect Goldman, the Bank was determined to silence anyone else who

spoke up about Mr. Cafasso’s conduct.

7. As such, when Ms. Crawford complained about Mr. Cafasso’s conduct she was

immediately subject to blatant retaliation. Before he was placed on leave, Mr. Cafasso lowered

3
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

Ms. Crawford’s quartile score (an internal metric used at Goldman) and at the same time raised

the score for the women for whom he had sexual desires – again, hoping for her to “return the

favor” as a quid pro quo. After he returned, and directly after Ms. Crawford raised her

complaints, he gave Ms. Crawford negative comments on her previously finalized review. Ms.

Crawford then complained that his conduct was retaliation – and an internal investigation

rejected her complaints without any remedial measure. The day after rejecting her complaints,

Ms. Crawford was told that her bonus would be decreased for the first time in her tenure. Mr.

Cafasso never looked at Ms. Crawford the same and refused to work with her substantively,

speak to her or assign her the work she had been accustomed to doing. Shortly thereafter, Ms.

Crawford was fired – a clear and blatant effort by the Bank to get rid of an employee who spoke

up against authority figures.

8. When Ms. Crawford was fired, she was told that she could continue working at

the Bank through the end of November 2020, at which point she would be placed on paid garden

leave through the end of January. On October 6, 2020, Ms. Crawford (through her counsel)

raised a complaint that her termination constituted discrimination and retaliation. On October

25, 2020, when Ms. Crawford informed Goldman that she would be commencing litigation and

would not be silenced, the next day Goldman abruptly changed course and terminated her

effective immediately and completely shut down her access to Goldman’s email and entire

electronic platform. Goldman’s retaliatory animus towards Ms. Crawford in doing so could not

be more overt.

9. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary

damages, to redress Defendants’ unlawful employment practices in violation of the New York

4
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290, et seq. (“NYSHRL”) and the New York

City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101, et seq. (“NYCHRL”).

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

10. Plaintiff will file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Upon receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue or other dismissal

by the EEOC, Plaintiff will file an action in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964.

11. Pursuant to NYCHRL § 8-502, Plaintiff will serve a copy of this Complaint upon

the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the New York City Law Department,

Office of the Corporation Counsel within ten days of its filing, thereby satisfying the notice

requirements of this action.

12. Plaintiff has complied with any and all other prerequisites to filing this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The Court has personal jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules

(“CPLR”) §301 because Defendant Goldman is a New York corporation and has its principal

place of business located at 200 West Street, New York, New York 10282.

14. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR §503 as Defendant Goldman is a corporate

resident of New York County and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this

action, including the unlawful employment practices alleged herein, occurred in this county.

PARTIES

15. Plaintiff Marla Crawford is a resident of New York and is a former Vice

President, Associate General Counsel in the Litigation & Regulatory Proceedings group at

5
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

Goldman. At all relevant times, Ms. Crawford met the definition of an “employee” under all

applicable statutes.

16. Defendant The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under

the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered as a foreign business corporation in the State

of New York. At all relevant times, Goldman Sachs met the definition of an “employer” under

all applicable statutes.

17. Defendant Karen Seymour is Goldman’s General Counsel. At all relevant times,

Ms. Seymour met the definition of an “employer” under all applicable statutes and exercised the

authority to control Ms. Crawford’s employment, including her work assignments, pay and

responsibilities.

18. Defendant Darrell Cafasso is Goldman’s Global Head of Litigation. At all

relevant times, Mr. Cafasso met the definition of an “employer” under all applicable statutes and

exercised the authority to control Ms. Crawford’s employment, including her work assignments,

pay and responsibilities.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Background

19. Ms. Crawford is a highly accomplished attorney with more than three decades of

litigation experience. Ms. Crawford started her legal career at Jones Day, where for 22 years she

amassed extensive litigation experience in securities, patent, bankruptcy, product liability and

general commercial litigation cases.

20. Ms. Crawford also developed an expertise in the evolving area of e-discovery,

including the retention, collection, review, maintenance and production of electronically-stored

6
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

information. Ms. Crawford has become a recognized expert, author and speaker on document

retention and e-discovery.

21. In 2010, Ms. Crawford joined Goldman as a Vice President (“VP”), Associate

General Counsel. Ms. Crawford was the global e-discovery manager and she built an internal e-

discovery program from the ground up. Ms. Crawford also managed e-discovery with outside

counsel in numerous litigations and revamped the entire e-discovery processes and vendor

selections. In a matter of only two years, Ms. Crawford’s e-discovery management resulted in a

savings of approximately $30 million annually.

22. In 2012, Ms. Crawford transitioned from the General Counsel’s office to the

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings group. Ms. Crawford continues to be the Bank’s primary

e-discovery expert and also manages a full case load focusing on complex commercial and

securities litigation and regulatory.

23. During Ms. Crawford’s ten-year tenure, she has consistently received

“Outstanding” marks on her 360-degree performance feedback reviews, coupled with substantive

comments that have been uniformly laudatory.

24. In 2018, Ms. Crawford was described as a “true functional subject matter expert”

and an “invaluable go-to person on e-discovery.” In addition to “broadening the value she

brings” due to expanded areas of expertise and achieving “substantial cost savings to the firm,”

her review also noted that she has “excellent judgment” and is a “clear, concise and effective

communicator who is able to distill legal concepts effectively to business people and non-

lawyers.” In sum, Ms. Crawford was assessed as having “an incredible work ethic,

thoroughness, creative problem-solving abilities and strong leadership and execution capabilities

to every project.”

7
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

25. Ms. Crawford’s 2018 review was nothing new – all of her previous performance

reviews follow the same pattern and are completely consistent with heaping praise and

appreciation. In 2019, the pattern held true – Ms. Crawford was again rated “Outstanding” and

the review noted her successful contribution to the overhaul of the Bank’s information

governance processes, a massive task:

This year Marla was asked by leadership to apply her expertise to

overhaul the firm’s litigation hold and document retention system
process in order to streamline them and lower costs, while ensuring
that the firm remains in compliance with applicable legal and
regulatory requirements in the US and UK. She worked effectively
with stakeholders to accomplish this and received positive feedback
for her ability to think strategically across jurisdictions.

26. Other remarks by Ms. Crawford’s colleagues described her as, “extremely

valuable,” “incredibly helpful,” “a terrific resource,” “a global thinker,” “showing strong

organization, prioritization, work ethic and judgment,” “[having] a great technical understanding

of risks,” and “[having] [e]xtensive subject matter expertise.” Poignantly, Ms. Crawford was

assessed as being “Not scared to highlight issues . . . to ensure the firm makes the right

decisions.”

27. Ms. Crawford’s 2019 review, in its original form, did not contain a single

negative or critical remark. However, as described below, this would change, but only after Ms.

Crawford raised complaints of sexual misconduct and acted as an advisor and confidant to a

sexual harassment victim.

8
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

28. In early 2018, Ms. Seymour was hired as Goldman’s General Counsel (“GC”). 1

Ms. Seymour had previously been a Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (“Sullivan Cromwell”)

where her husband, Samuel W. Seymour, was also a Partner and remains in an Of Counsel role.

29. One of Ms. Seymour’s early decisions was to hire a new Head of Litigation, after

Norman Feit retired. Ms. Seymour hired her former Partner at Sullivan Cromwell, Mr. Cafasso.

30. Mr. Cafasso was a controversial hire for many at the Bank.

31. Mr. Cafasso was 42 years old and light on experience relative to other qualified

candidates, and he was rumored to have had sexual misconduct issues at Sullivan Cromwell.

32. In particular, many felt Ms. Seymour should have promoted internal candidates

with more experience. Ms. Seymour did not appear to even consider any female candidates or

any other minority group lacking appropriate representation in Goldman’s legal department.

Currently, Ms. Seymour and her direct reports are all white.

33. Many felt Ms. Seymour’s choice was favoritism towards her Sullivan Cromwell

colleague – and for Ms. Seymour, it was important that her selection worked out.

II. Ms. Crawford Reports Sexual Misconduct by Jeff Isaacs

34. In or around November 2018, Goldman hired Mr. Cafasso as the Global Head of

Litigation. Though Ms. Crawford reported directly to a different Managing Director, Mr.

Cafasso was at the top of her organizational chart.

35. While Ms. Crawford fully respected his position, she was aware of his rumored

indiscretions at Sullivan Cromwell and was concerned about the impact he would have on the

1
Initially, Ms. Seymour was co-GC with Gregory Palm, Esq., who also previously worked
at Sullivan Cromwell. Ms. Seymour became the sole GC in early 2019.
9
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

Bank’s culture in ongoing women’s empowerment, particularly in the wake of #MeToo

movement, of which Ms. Crawford was and remains an ardent supporter.

36. Just weeks after Mr. Cafasso started, a situation arose involving inappropriate

conduct by a senior member of the legal department, Jeff Isaacs (then-Chief Operating Officer of

Legal; currently Managing Director, Corporate and Workplace Solutions) towards a much

younger woman.

37. In mid-December 2018, during a legal department holiday party at L’Angolo

restaurant, a female Legal Analyst confided in Ms. Crawford that Mr. Isaacs made her feel

uncomfortable by constantly staring and leering at her. This Legal Analyst also said she knew

other women who had worked with him felt the same way.

38. This was unfortunately not a surprise to Ms. Crawford. Several years earlier, she

had seen Mr. Isaacs position himself behind the desk of a female Assistant and peer down her

blouse at her breasts. Ms. Crawford even directly told Mr. Isaacs to stop after he had done it

repeatedly.

39. The day after the holiday party, Ms. Crawford spoke to the Legal Analyst and said

she felt obligated to report Mr. Isaacs' behavior up the chain but wanted to do so with her

permission and approval. She approved.

40. In the days that followed, Ms. Crawford first reported these complaints to her

direct manager. Her manager was concerned and told Ms. Crawford that she had an obligation to

report Mr. Isaacs’ conduct to Ms. Seymour but recommended that she first register the complaint

with Mr. Cafasso, given that he was the head of their group.

10
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 11 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

41. It was widely discussed in Goldman’s legal department – though never

documented – that internal complaints should stay within the legal department and not be

reported to Goldman’s HCM group.

42. Either that day or the day after, Ms. Crawford followed her manager’s

recommendation and spoke to Mr. Cafasso. Mr. Cafasso had no reaction or demonstration of

concern and agreed that she should speak to Ms. Seymour.

43. Later that evening, after regular working hours, Mr. Cafasso emailed Ms.

Crawford and asked her to call his cell phone. Ms. Crawford did as directed, and Mr. Cafasso

said he wanted more information and wanted to know what she planned to say to Ms. Seymour.

The entire tone of the conversation was not one of a senior leader interested in genuine fact

gathering, but of Mr. Cafasso’s desire to protect himself in any future conversations he might

have with Ms. Seymour so that he was not surprised by any issues raised.

44. Shortly after her conversation with Mr. Cafasso, she reported the matter to Ms.

Seymour. Ms. Crawford recounted to her everything the Legal Analyst had told her and also

recounted her previous personal observations of Mr. Isaac’s unacceptable behavior, including his

earlier conduct with the Assistant.

45. Ms. Crawford had also been told that Mr. Isaacs would “rate” women’s looks

around the office, an activity that often occurred during men-only lunch outings to the Bank’s

cafeteria. Ms. Crawford heard that Mr. Isaacs said that “there was a lot more talent at

Goldman than at Prudential if you know what I mean.” Ms. Seymour said she would try to

understand Mr. Isaac’s behavior and that she would “handle it.”

46. However, Ms. Crawford is not aware of any bona fide investigation ever

conducted. For instance, Ms. Crawford was never interviewed. Ms. Crawford felt that rather

11
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 12 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

than take her concern seriously, all she had accomplished was establishing herself as a

“complainer” to Mr. Cafasso, her new boss, and to Ms. Seymour, his boss.

III. Mr. Cafasso’s Excessive Drinking, Sexual Harassment and Favoritism

47. The holiday party also raised another issue for Ms. Crawford – Mr. Cafasso’s

binge drinking. However, surely Ms. Seymour and others who knew Mr. Cafasso were

previously well aware of his irresponsible drinking.

48. Mr. Cafasso drank excessively at the party and was extremely intoxicated to the

point of slurring his words. Ms. Crawford recalls Mr. Cafasso literally “chugging” wine as if it

were water.

49. When the party was over, he continued the evening with a smaller group at a

nearby bar. This was extremely ill-advised behavior for a new senior lawyer at his first major

social outing since joining Goldman, as everyone observed his inappropriate conduct.

50. Mr. Cafasso’s conduct directly violated Bank policy:

Firmwide Policy – Alcoholic Beverages . . . The firm expects

employees to use moderation and good judgment in the
consumption of alcoholic beverages at business-related functions,
whether on or off premises.

51. Ms. Crawford was concerned about this behavior by someone in leadership and

thought it could lead to myriad potential problems.

52. Thereafter, Mr. Crawford heard from colleagues that Mr. Cafasso would regularly

drink to excess. Ms. Crawford did not formally report Mr. Cafasso’s conduct as she had just

raised a complaint about Mr. Isaacs and was concerned about being labeled as an instigator.

53. Moreover, Mr. Cafasso’s drinking was hardly a secret as others at the Bank had

come to know that he frequently drank to excess.

12
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 13 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

54. Ms. Crawford’s concerns quickly materialized further. In late August 2019, a

junior lawyer in Mr. Cafasso’s litigation group reported to Ms. Crawford that Mr. Cafasso had

asked her out for drinks, and that they had gone to P.J. Clarks in Brookfield Place.

55. Notably, this junior lawyer is young and conventionally attractive, and Mr.

Cafasso never invited Ms. Crawford or any other middle-aged women in the office out socially.

56. Jane Doe worked within Mr. Cafasso’s group and was an under-performer whose

position and compensation was vulnerable due to her previous performance reviews.

57. Furthermore, while Jane Doe is an extremely smart and competent lawyer, she

was dealing with things in her personal life that would create sensitivity for anyone.

58. The timing of Mr. Cafasso’s invitation was also clearly planned – in the last week

of August nearly everyone was out of the office on vacation, providing an additional level of

cover for him to ask her out.

59. Jane Doe told Ms. Crawford that she accepted Mr. Cafasso’s invitation (she did

not feel she had a choice given that he was her boss’s boss) and that during the evening he had at

least five drinks. 2

60. As Jane Doe described it, Mr. Cafasso spoke to her about extremely personal

matters, including his unhappiness with his role at the Bank and his dissatisfaction with his

marriage.

61. On the latter topic, he told her that he and his wife met when they were very

young, that they had been together for a very long time and that he felt “something was missing.”

2
Jane Doe also told Ms. Crawford that after having five drinks and clearly being
inebriated, Mr. Cafasso drove home to New Jersey, which was completely unsafe and made her
highly uncomfortable.
13
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 14 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

62. Mr. Cafasso told Jane Doe that he thought she was “beautiful” and asked her

questions about her personal life as well.

63. It was clear to Jane Doe – and to Ms. Crawford as it was being relayed – that Mr.

Cafasso was flirting with her, attempting to create an intimate relationship and making sexual

overtures. Ms. Crawford told Jane Doe to be careful.

64. Ms. Crawford felt this conduct was inappropriate and constituted harassment of a

younger woman in violation of then Bank’s policies.

65. Over the next several weeks, Mr. Cafasso and Jane Doe continued to see each

other socially, and Jane Doe would confide in Ms. Crawford about their numerous outings – all

of which involved heavy drinking and no food.

66. Mr. Cafasso became increasingly more overt and brazen with his overtures,

feeding Jane Doe lines such as:

• “I have feelings for you I have never had for anyone else but my wife”

• “I have these feelings for you.”

• “I think I’m falling in love with you.”

67. Moreover, Mr. Cafasso and Jane Doe started having frequent “closed door”

meetings in his office – far beyond what might have been reasonably necessary for their work.

68. On several occasions, when these meetings were happening, Ms. Crawford made

an effort to make eye contact with Mr. Cafasso (office walls are glass and fully transparent) and

express her clear objection to his conduct – Mr. Cafasso’s face would become red and he would

quickly end the meetings.

14
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 15 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

69. Perhaps to further avoid suspicion, they would both sometimes “disappear” for

extensive periods of time in the middle of the workday – but, this only heightened suspicions,

particularly when they would re-emerge around the same time.

70. Very quickly, it became clear to people in the office that there was something

going on between Mr. Cafasso and Jane Doe.

71. While Ms. Crawford’s manager was out of the office on vacation when the

relationship started, she returned after Labor Day and quickly learned about the romance.

72. In addition, the group Paralegals and Assistants could all see what was happening.

This created an extremely uncomfortable situation for everyone.

73. Ms. Crawford and the Paralegals and Assistants (all women in their 50s and 60s)

were all very concerned for Jane Doe, as they could sense that Mr. Cafasso was using his

position of power to prey upon her and worried that she might find herself in a difficult situation.

74. As these weeks progressed and Mr. Cafasso’s infatuation with Jane Doe grew,

Jane Doe shared with Ms. Crawford that she was becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

75. Upon information and belief, Mr. Cafasso and Jane Doe’s relationship became

physical.

76. However, while Jane Doe wanted a positive working relationship with Mr.

Cafasso, particularly given her previous reviews, she decided that did not want his attention in a

sexual or intimate manner.

77. Yet she also felt trapped given the power dynamic in the relationship.

78. Jane Doe felt that she had no control over Mr. Cafasso’s ever-growing attention

towards her and had no ability to cut it off without harming her career.

15
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 16 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

79. For instance, Jane Doe told Ms. Crawford that Mr. Cafasso even directly told her,

“I’m going to help you come review time, and you can return the favor . . .” Jane Doe felt that

she was becoming obligated to do favors for Mr. Cafasso if she wanted to succeed.

80. Mr. Cafasso then did exactly as promised.

81. Later in September 2019, Mr. Cafasso completed annual scorecards in which he

ranked his departmental reports pursuant to a quartile grid.

82. While the scores and scoring process are not disclosed to employees, Ms.

Crawford’s understanding is that she was scored in one of the top quartiles (i.e. quartiles “1” or

“2,” but no lower than “3”), consistent with her overwhelmingly positive reviews.

83. Ms. Crawford believes that Jane Doe had been scored a “4” in 2018.

84. However, in 2019, Jane Doe was ranked a “2,” while Ms. Crawford was ranked a

“4.” 3 Mr. Cafasso rewarded Jane Doe based on their intimate relationship and his expectation

that she would “return the favor” and lowered Ms. Crawford’s score because she was not

providing sexual favors.

85. In effect, it became clear to Ms. Crawford that Mr. Cafasso was dolling out job

benefits to a woman who he hoped would engage in extra-curricular activities with him, while

those who did not – like her – would suffer.

86. Mr. Cafasso was also aware that Ms. Crawford knew about his misconduct and

surely factored that into his decision to lower her quartile rank.

3
As stated, the scores are not generally provided to employees. However, as mentioned
below, when Ms. Crawford’s manager later disclosed to Ms. Crawford that Mr. Cafasso included
negative remarks in her performance review, she also disclosed to Ms. Crawford that Mr.
Cafasso had lowered her quartile score.
16
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 17 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

87. In October 2019, Jane Doe realized that she could no longer handle the situation

with Mr. Cafasso. In part, upon information and belief, this was due to Mr. Cafasso’s wife –

who had apparently learned of the relationship – calling her to say that she knew about the

relationship and was “praying for her.”

88. Jane Doe told Ms. Crawford and Ms. Crawford’s manager that she was scared and

did not know what to do.

89. Mr. Cafasso told Jane Doe several times that he was ending their relationship,

only to then continue his pursuit – usually when alcohol was involved – shortly thereafter.

90. Mr. Cafasso made Jane Doe feel as though it was her fault – not his – for his

conduct. Although he was the clear aggressor, he would tell her, “You’re a temptress” and

bizarrely told her “You’re the Devil’s pawn.” Jane Doe continued to get pulled back into this

relationship, which made her feel extremely uncomfortable and used.

91. Finally, the situation reached a tipping point. Jane Doe told Ms. Crawford that

Mr. Cafasso realized he had “gone too far” when he promised her job benefits in exchange for

“favors” from her in return, and that he wanted to get out in front of it before Jane Doe filed a

complaint.

92. Accordingly, on Friday, November 1, 2019, Mr. Cafasso self-reported to Ms.

Seymour that he had developed an intimate relationship with Jane Doe, that he had told his wife

and that he was going to end it.

93. Later that day, without any warning, Mr. Cafasso called Jane Doe while she was

at the office and told her that his wife was with him on speakerphone. Mr. Cafasso and his wife

told Jane Doe that the relationship was over.

17
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 18 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

94. Jane Doe was completely caught off-guard by this call and was left shaking and in

tears, and was forced to leave the office to avoid further embarrassment.

95. Jane Doe returned to the office on Monday, November 4, 2019, but it was clear to

everyone that she did not look like herself – she was shaking, looked unkempt and appeared

unwell. Ms. Crawford urged her to leave the office and go to a doctor, which she did.

96. That was the last day Jane Doe ever set foot at Goldman – she never returned.

97. Jane Doe was represented by Gloria Allred, Esq. and Goldman likely paid a sum

of money to force Jane Doe to leave, to force her to keep her experiences confidential and to

force her to cooperate with Goldman in the future. This demonstrates the importance Goldman

placed of protecting their senior lawyers and making sure to silence anyone who had the courage

to speak up against Mr. Cafasso and Goldman.

IV. Retaliation Against Ms. Crawford Upon Mr. Cafasso’s Return from Leave

98. For his part, Mr. Cafasso was placed on an administrative leave.

99. Goldman retained Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil Gotshal”) to conduct a

so-called “independent” investigation. However, there was nothing at all independent about it.

100. The investigation was conducted jointly between Weil Gotshal, Gena Palumbo

(Managing Director, Associate General Counsel in the Employment Group) and Aimee

Hendricks 4 of HCM, likely so Goldman could ensure the necessary level of control over the

process and outcome.

4
Earlier this year, Ms. Hendricks was named as a defendant in Blumenthal v. Goldman
Sachs, Group, Inc., No. CGC-20582812 (CA. Sup. Ct., S.F. Cty.). Mr. Blumenthal alleged
horrific assault, battery and horrific mistreatment by his superior including “threats to have him
killed” if he reported the misconduct. Dkt No. 1 at ¶¶ 25, 29, 47 Mr. Blumenthal alleged, in
part, that he registered his complaints in writing to Ms. Hendricks and did not hear back for
almost a month, and that when she did respond she said only “we have taken actions we have
18
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 19 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

101. Moreover, whether Goldman was directly involved in the investigation or not, it

was completely tainted from the start and was expressly set up to clear Mr. Cafasso of

wrongdoing. One of Ms. Crawford’s colleagues told her that directly.

102. Upon information and belief, Goldman apparently went so far as to contact a

nearby hotel that Mr. Cafasso and Jane Doe had gone to together to buy security footage to

ensure it did not get in the wrong hands.

103. While Mr. Cafasso was out, Ms. Seymour spoke to Ms. Crawford’s manager and

acknowledged that this was a “sticky” situation and said to her: “Let’s try to put this genie

back in the bottle.”

104. Ms. Crawford was not interviewed for the investigation.

105. Ms. Crawford’s manager was not interviewed for the investigation.

106. Upon information and belief, Goldman and/or Weil Gotshal intentionally

excluded many other relevant witnesses to cover the entire matter up as much as possible in their

efforts to follow Ms. Seymour’s goal to “put this genie back in the bottle.”

107. The investigation was conducted in such a way as to put secrecy above fact-

finding, and Goldman and Mr. Cafasso’s well-being above everything else.

108. Ms. Seymour, who was responsible for hiring Mr. Cafasso, was personally vested

in ensuring his success and she was clearly involved in how this matter was handled.

109. Mr. Cafasso was quickly back to work within two weeks, potentially putting other

junior women in a vulnerable position.

deemed appropriate.” Id. at ¶ 29. Ms. Hendricks clearly has a track record of taking
inappropriate actions in response to very serious complaints.

19
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 20 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

110. Mr. Cafasso’s swift return – and Jane Doe’s abrupt departure – sent a clear

message to everyone aware of the situation that Goldman would fully protect senior men who

engage in misconduct towards women, and that victims would be forced out and muzzled.

111. Those in the office who were aware of Mr. Cafasso’s relationship with Jane Doe

were certain he could not possibly be allowed to return. Mr. Cafasso – a married man – preyed

upon a vulnerable younger woman and used his position of power to assert control over her.

112. Even putting aside the obvious and very serious legal and ethical concerns, Mr.

Cafasso also disregarded the Bank’s own written policies, including the following:

Professional and Social Relationships with More Junior Employees.

[] Particular care should be taken by those who work in the same
business area, have other regular business interactions or are in a
reporting relationship . . . For the more junior person, the
relationship may be perceived as forming part of their ongoing
professional obligations. Senior individuals must be sensitive to that
possibility and conduct such relationships accordingly . . . Careful
consideration should also be given to how such relationships may
be perceived by colleagues. Colleagues are likely to be highly
sensitive to any perception of favoritism or other conflicts of
interest. Senior employees are therefore expected to manage such
relationships thoughtfully, particularly so as to ensure that
colleagues at all levels are not made to feel uncomfortable or feel
that there is any lack of objectivity when considering work
assignments or performance.

Personal Relationships. [R]omantic, sexual or dating relationships

between firm employees . . . can give rise to a conflict of interest . .
. [.] For these reasons, you are required to bring to the firm’s
attention any Covered Relationship [as defined] . . . However, if the
Covered Relationship is between employees of different seniority,
the senior employee has a particular responsibility to ensure that the
Covered Relationship is promptly disclosed. Disclosure should be
as soon as practicable following the commencement of the Covered
Relationship . . . Prompt notification of Covered Relationships by
Managing Directors is particularly important . . . Once a Covered
Relationship is disclosed, an assessment will be made as to whether
a conflict of interests exists. For example, in the case of a Covered
Relationship between Goldman Sachs employees, consideration

20
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 21 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

will be given to whether one party to the relationship has the ability
to take or influence employed related decisions about the other. 5

113. Mr. Cafasso engaged in an inappropriate relationship, one which created a

conflict of interest and about which he had an affirmative obligation to disclose immediately and

did not. Mr. Cafasso engaged in unacceptably poor judgment in a post #MeToo era when there

is simply no excuse left for men in a position of authority to behave this way. But he was not

disciplined at all.

114. On or about November 18, 2019, the day of his return, Ms. Crawford approached

Mr. Cafasso in his office.

115. Ms. Crawford made it clear to Mr. Cafasso that she and Jane Doe had been

speaking about the events leading up to his leave and that she objected to his conduct. She told

Mr. Cafasso that she did not want to be involved and wanted to be treated fairly by him.

116. Ms. Crawford felt compelled to speak to him as it was obvious Ms. Crawford

knew and disapproved of his behavior and she did not want to feel as if she was “walking on

eggshells” due to an unspoken matter between them. Mr. Cafasso simply said he “couldn’t talk

about it,” likely due to a confidentiality direction.

117. However, as Ms. Crawford was leaving his office, he whispered, in sum and

substance, “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

118. Ms. Crawford was dumbfounded by the arrogance of this remark and just kept

walking.

5
Of course, Mr. Cafasso was also in violation of the Bank’s Alcoholic Beverages policy,
referenced above. This must have been discovered during Weil Gotshal’s investigation.
21
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 22 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

119. Over the days that followed, several women who were aware of the matter

discussed that they were extremely disappointed with the manner in which it was handled and

Mr. Cafasso’s swift return, Ms. Crawford among them.

120. Around this time, Ms. Crawford received a call from Ms. Hendricks.

121. Ms. Crawford was surprised Ms. Hendricks was not calling to interview her, but

to chastise her for speaking with her colleagues about Mr. Cafasso’s engagement in inappropriate

conduct and the Bank’s failure to take appropriate action.

122. Ms. Crawford also told Ms. Hendricks that she was surprised she was not

interviewed in the investigation and was concerned about retaliation from Mr. Cafasso.

123. But Ms. Hendricks seemed unconcerned and said that was for a separate

conversation.

124. Within the days that followed, Ms. Crawford’s manager learned that Mr. Cafasso

opened Ms. Crawford’s performance review – which was already completed and finished – and

added additional, negative comments.

125. Ms. Crawford’s manager informed Ms. Crawford, and both agreed it appeared to

be blatant retaliation in an attempt to undermine her for being a supporter of Jane Doe and for

having raised complaints about his conduct.

126. Specifically, despite all the other resounding praise, Mr. Cafasso wrote:

She remains more narrowly focused than her VP litigator peers,

which impacts the overall view of her performance. The fact that
Marla defines her role more narrowly than others is reflected in her
360 feedback below as well as the rating of “Leadership” as a top
area for development. Marla handles straightforward subpoenas and
conflict waivers competently, but could do more to demonstrate an
ability to tackle novel legal questions and to demonstrate
independent judgment on substantive matters. For example, Marla
could show more initiative in editing and weighing in on legal

22
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 23 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

strategy. Likewise, Marla’s business and product knowledge is

narrower than we would expect given her role and tenure.
127. On November 21, 2019, Ms. Crawford met with Mr. Cafasso and Ms. Crawford’s

manager to discuss her performance review.

128. Mr. Cafasso admitted that he re-opened her review in recent days (following his

return) and added those negative remarks.

129. Ms. Crawford said that she felt the additions were insulting and retaliatory – the

remarks were untrue and had never once been raised with her before.

130. Ms. Crawford’s manager had agreed that Mr. Cafasso’s remarks were inaccurate

and had told Mr. Cafasso that she disagreed.

131. After the meeting, Ms. Crawford’s manager recommended that Ms. Crawford

speak with a representative of HCM.

132. Accordingly, on November 25, 2019, Ms. Crawford met with Chris Franciose

(VP, HCM) to register a complaint of retaliation.

133. Ms. Crawford went through the timeline set forth above with Mr. Franciose,

referencing Mr. Cafasso’s inappropriate relationship with Jane Doe and his retaliation against her

for supporting Jane Doe as well as her confrontation of Mr. Cafasso and upon his return to the

office.

134. Ms. Crawford explained that Mr. Cafasso’s actions in lowering her quartile score

and re-opening her review to add negative comments was clearly retaliatory.

135. Mr. Franciose said an investigation would be conducted and that she would be

informed of the results.

136. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Crawford also registered a complaint with her mentor

Annette Kelton (MD, Associate General Counsel) as well. Ms. Crawford also mentioned that

23
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 24 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

she had complained to Mr. Franciose in HCM and that she was concerned that the matter would

not be handled appropriately.

137. To the extent any investigation was done by HCM, this one too was a sham.

138. Ms. Crawford was never contacted again with any follow up questions.

139. The investigation took seven weeks to complete – as compared to two weeks for a

more complex investigation after Mr. Cafasso’s self-reporting – demonstrating the lack of

priority of Ms. Crawford’s concerns.

140. It was not until January 15, 2020, that Mr. Franciose got back to Ms. Crawford

and told her that he determined there was “no evidence of retaliation.”

141. Mr. Franciose did not explain any details about the investigation or factual

findings – only that Mr. Cafasso was cleared of wrongdoing yet again.

142. The next day, Ms. Crawford was given her year-end compensation.

143. By way of background, since Ms. Crawford’s first full year at the Bank in 2011,

she had received increased bonuses each and every year.

144. However, directly after her complaints, Ms. Crawford’s bonus was for the first

time decreased. Ms. Crawford took a $30,000 bonus reduction from the previous year (and

approximately $40,000 cut from her 2019 expected bonus), which brought her bonus to the

lowest point it had been since 2014.

145. These bonuses are determined in large part by Mr. Cafasso.

146. Ms. Crawford told her manager that she felt this was only further retaliation – and

her manager agreed – but she said there was nothing that could be done.

147. But the retaliation did not end there.

148. Mr. Cafasso never treated Ms. Crawford the same after her returned to the office.

24
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 25 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

149. When the office was still operational (pre-COVID), Mr. Cafasso all but stopped

communicating with Ms. Crawford and largely ignored her.

150. Mr. Cafasso never initiated any substantive communication with Ms. Crawford

and the only times they ever spoke substantively was when Ms. Crawford would approach him in

his office about a legal matter that required his attention.

151. To the same point, Mr. Cafasso had monthly 1:1 meetings with the lawyers in his

group, but after his return he cancelled almost every meeting with Ms. Crawford.

152. For the few meetings he kept, he acted completely disinterested and barely

engaged her at all.

153. During their last meeting, which was by telephone conference in August 2020,

Mr. Cafasso was driving and was completely disinterested and unfocused on their call.

154. Moreover, Mr. Cafasso started steering work typically in Ms. Crawford’s

bandwidth to others.

155. For instance, Ms. Crawford had previously been the point person for complex

regulatory investigations, and these continued during the pandemic.

156. However, Mr. Cafasso only assigned the most basic and simple matters to Ms.

Crawford leaving the more interesting and substantive work for others.

157. To Ms. Crawford, it was clear that Mr. Cafasso was trying to manage her out of

the Bank.

158. On September 29, 2020, Ms. Crawford received a call from Stephanie Goldstein

(MD, Associate General Counsel) and David Markowitz, who told her that she was being let go.

159. Ms. Goldstein and Mr. Markowitz were tasked with delivering this message, but it

was clearly a decision made by Mr. Cafasso, likely together with Ms. Seymour.

25
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 26 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

160. They told Ms. Crawford that the e-discovery function of her job was being moved

to Dallas as a cost cutting measure, and they offered her the opportunity to move there and take a

salary reduction.

161. This was a false choice, as it is well known that Ms. Crawford’s whole family is

in New York, that she is the primary caregiver for her 83-year old immunocompromised mother

and that she had bought a new townhouse earlier in 2020.

162. Mr. Cafasso knew very well that Ms. Crawford would be forced out by this

option.

163. More to the point, there was no need to move Ms. Crawford’s role to Dallas.

164. If the issue were cost-cutting, Goldman could have offered her to remain in New

York at a reduced salary.

165. Ms. Crawford’s e-discovery and technology functions can be handled in either

New York or Dallas, and the role is not being eliminated.

166. Moreover, Ms. Crawford’s e-discovery and technology role are at this point not

even the majority of her work, as she has been primarily handling litigations and regulatory

proceedings for many years as well.

167. In short, this is not a situation in which Ms. Crawford’s role is being eliminated as

part of a reduction in force 6 – rather, an unnecessary and arbitrary decision was made to move

her role to Dallas as a way to force her out.

6
In March 2020, amid the growing COVID-19 pandemic, Goldman along with several
other large banks announced that they would be halting any job reductions. This likely saved
Ms. Crawford’s job for a period of time as Mr. Cafasso surely would have let her go if he had the
chance to select team members for a layoff. Recently, Goldman has resumed some job
eliminations, but Ms. Crawford’s job was supposedly “moved” not eliminated.

26
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 27 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

168. Notably, Ms. Crawford was the only lawyer in the litigation department whose

role was moved to Dallas.

Further Retaliation Post-Termination Notice

169. When Ms. Crawford was terminated, she was told that she could continue

working at the Bank through the end of November 2020, at which point she would be placed on

paid garden leave through the end of January.

170. On October 6, 2020, Ms. Crawford (through her counsel) raised a complaint that

her termination was blatant retaliation.

171. On October 25, 2020, when Ms. Crawford informed Goldman that she would be

commencing litigation the next day, Goldman abruptly changed course and terminated her

effective immediately and completely shut down her access to Goldman’s email and entire

electronic platform.

172. Goldman changed its course due to Ms. Crawford’s engagement in protected

activity; namely, that she raised complaints of unlawful conduct and stated her intention to

engage in further protected conduct by commencing litigation.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of the NYSHRL)
Against All Defendants

173. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

174. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants have discriminated

against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender in violation of the NYSHRL.

175. Defendants Seymour and Cafasso are individually liable as they aided, abetted

and directly participated in the conduct described above.

27
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 28 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or

economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of damages, to the greatest extent permitted

under law.

177. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe mental

anguish and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and

other relief.

178. Defendants are liable for all other applicable damages including but not limited to

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the NYSHRL)
Against All Defendants

179. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

180. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants retaliated against

Plaintiff on the basis of her engagement in protected activities in violation of the NYSHRL.

181. Defendants Seymour and Cafasso are individually liable as they aided, abetted

and directly participated in the conduct described above.

182. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or other

economic harm for which he is entitled an award of monetary damages and other relief.

28
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 29 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe mental anguish

and emotional distress for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.

184. Defendants are liable for all other applicable damages including but not limited to

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of the NYCHRL)
Against All Defendants

185. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

186. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants have discriminated

against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender in violation of the NYCHRL.

187. Defendants Seymour and Cafasso are individually liable as they aided, abetted

and directly participated in the conduct described above.

188. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or

economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of damages, to the greatest extent permitted

under law.

189. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe mental

anguish and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and

other relief.

190. Defendants are liable for all other applicable damages including but not limited to

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

29
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 30 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the NYCHRL)
Against All Defendants

191. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

192. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants retaliated against

Plaintiff on the basis of her engagement in protected activities in violation of the NYCHRL.

193. Defendants Seymour and Cafasso are individually liable as they aided, abetted

and directly participated in the conduct described above.

194. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or other

economic harm for which he is entitled an award of monetary damages and other relief.

195. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe mental anguish

and emotional distress for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.

196. Defendants are liable for all other applicable damages including but not limited to

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against

Defendants, containing the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants

complained of herein violate the State of New York and the City of New York;

B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants from engaging in any

such further unlawful conduct, including the policies and practices complained of herein;

30
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 31 of 32
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/26/2020

C. An award of damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial,

plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic damages;

D. An award of damages against Defendants, in an amount to be determined at trial,

plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all non-monetary and/or compensatory

damages, including, but not limited to, compensation for his emotional distress;

E. An award of punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount to be determined

at trial;

F. Prejudgment interest on all amounts due;

G. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, including, but not

limited to, expert witness fees, as well Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the

fullest extent permitted by law; and

H. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.

Dated: October 26, 2020

New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

WIGDOR LLP

By: ____________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
David E. Gottlieb

85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

31
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 32 of 32