A New York appellate court has reinstated a retaliation claim made by Jessica Denson against Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. This decision affects Denson, a former director of Hispanic engagement for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, who alleged that the campaign retaliated against her after she filed a discrimination lawsuit. The court's ruling is significant because it addresses the boundaries of employer actions in response to employee complaints of discrimination.
The case, Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Index No. 101616/17, was filed in 2017 when Denson claimed she faced discrimination, a hostile work environment, and defamation during her employment with the campaign. Following her lawsuit, the Trump campaign sought $1.5 million in damages through arbitration, arguing that Denson violated a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) by filing her complaint. However, the Southern District of New York previously ruled that the NDA was invalid and unenforceable.
In her amended complaint, Denson alleged that the campaign's arbitration filing constituted retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. She argued that the campaign's actions were a direct response to her protected activity of filing a discrimination lawsuit. Denson's legal team moved for summary judgment on her retaliation claim, while the Trump campaign countered with evidence from its former Chief Operating Officer, Michael S. Glassner, who claimed the arbitration was based on a good faith belief that Denson breached the NDA.
The court's ruling on October 22, 2026, reversed a lower court's decision that had dismissed Denson's retaliation claim. The appellate court found that Denson had provided sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the Trump campaign's stated reasons for the arbitration were merely a pretext for retaliation. The court noted, "To establish a causal connection between a plaintiff's protected activity and an action her employer took that disadvantaged her, a plaintiff needs to show that retaliatory animus was 'a motivating factor' for the defendant."
Judge Manzanet-Daniels and other judges on the panel highlighted that while the Trump campaign had initially met its burden of showing a non-retaliatory reason for filing the arbitration, Denson's evidence raised questions about the legitimacy of that reason. The court pointed out inconsistencies in Glassner's testimony, particularly regarding the basis for the $1.5 million damage claim and the campaign's ability to demonstrate any actual damages resulting from Denson's actions.
The ruling emphasized that the evidence presented by Denson, including the campaign's history of filing similar lawsuits against former employees, could lead a jury to conclude that the arbitration was an attempt to silence her and discourage others from coming forward with their complaints. The court stated that the evidence could support a finding that the enforcement of the NDA was a pretext for discrimination.
This decision is significant as it reinforces the protections afforded to employees under the New York City Human Rights Law. It underscores that employers cannot retaliate against employees for asserting their rights, particularly in cases involving discrimination. The ruling may encourage other individuals who have faced similar situations to come forward and seek justice.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Denson and the Trump campaign. It serves as a reminder to employers about the legal risks associated with retaliatory actions against employees who file complaints. Companies must be cautious in their responses to such complaints to avoid potential legal repercussions.
Looking ahead, the case may proceed to trial, where Denson's claims will be fully examined. The court's decision allows her to present her case, and a jury will determine whether the Trump campaign's actions constituted unlawful retaliation. It remains to be seen how the case will unfold in the coming months.
Additionally, while the ruling can be appealed, the court's decision to reinstate the retaliation claim may limit the grounds for any appeal by the Trump campaign. Details regarding any related cases or further developments were not available in the court filing.