Shauneida C. Navarrete
Areas of Focus
Overview
Shauneida Navarrete’s practice focuses on employment and general commercial litigation disputes in state and federal courts, as well as domestic arbitration forums. In all matters, she partners with clients to help ensure a reasonable resolution for their disputes— whether the resolutions require general advice, mediation, or litigation.
Career & Education
- Fordham University School of Law, J.D., 2009
- Barnard College, B.A., 2004
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- Member, American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section
- Member, American Bar Association Litigation Section
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 04.09.24
OMB Releases Final Guidance Memo on the Government’s Use of AI
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Crowell Brings On Stroock Litigator And His 9-Atty Team In NY
Representative Matters
- Defending a multinational mining and energy corporation in a billion dollar U.S. federal civil RICO action.
- Representing thousands of individuals in a class action employment discrimination litigation.
- Defending international law firm in defense against former clients and attorneys concerning malpractice, breach of contract, and indemnification claims.
- Counseling and defending financial institution in defense of discrimination investigation conducted by New York City Commission on Human Rights.
- Defending Board of Elections in voting rights claims brought by individual constituents.
- Counseling a majority stockholder in tender offer litigation concerning the purchase of a Fortune 1000 company.
- Counseling and defending a Fortune 1000 client in a New York Attorney General investigation involving allegations of false advertising and deceptive marketing.
- Counseling non-party software company specializing in providing media data to advertising agencies in subpoena response in contentious multi-district litigation.
- Counseling a non-profit organization against former landlord’s holdover and breach of contract claim.
- Counseling and defending an attorney draftsman in deposition regarding construction of two multimillion-dollar trusts and corresponding wills.
- Representing an AmLaw100 law firm in arbitration against former investment management client seeking over U.S. $1 million in unpaid legal fees.
- Representing an AmLaw100 law firm in enforcing a court judgment and collection of over U.S. $1 million judgment from investment management client.
- Counseling a private technology company regarding due diligence requirements in merger with private equity firm.
- Counseling numerous victims of domestic violence in divorces from their abusers.
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 04.09.24
OMB Releases Final Guidance Memo on the Government’s Use of AI
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Crowell Brings On Stroock Litigator And His 9-Atty Team In NY
Insights
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 04.09.24
OMB Releases Final Guidance Memo on the Government’s Use of AI
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Press Coverage | 11.13.23
Crowell Brings On Stroock Litigator And His 9-Atty Team In NY
