Key Points

  • The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed a February 2025 order granting Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. summary judgment on Jessica Denson's retaliation claim premised on the campaign's arbitration against her.
  • The panel held that the campaign met its initial burden of offering a non-retaliatory reason for the arbitration, but that Ms. Denson raised a triable issue of fact on pretext under the New York City Human Rights Law.
  • The court relied on inconsistencies between former campaign COO Michael S. Glassner's affidavit and his later deposition, and on evidence that the campaign could not articulate any consequential damages supporting its $1.5 million demand.
  • The court also cited evidence of similar lawsuits the campaign filed against former staffers, and granted Lift Our Voices leave to file an amicus brief.

A New York appeals court on Thursday revived a former Trump campaign staffer's claim that the campaign illegally retaliated against her by seeking $1.5 million in arbitration after she sued for discrimination. The court held that a jury could find the campaign's stated reason for the demand was a pretext.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed an order of Justice Francis A. Kahn III of the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, entered on or about Feb. 18, 2025. That order had granted Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The five-justice panel denied the campaign's motion in an unsigned decision and awarded costs to the former staffer, Jessica Denson.

The decision revives Ms. Denson's claim that the arbitration demand violated the New York City Human Rights Law. The panel relied on testimony from the campaign's former chief operating officer, whose account of why the campaign filed the arbitration changed between a sworn affidavit and a later deposition, and on the campaign's inability to tie the $1.5 million demand to any consequential damages.

Ms. Denson was the director of Hispanic engagement for Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. She sued the campaign in November 2017, asserting claims for discrimination, a hostile work environment and defamation. One month later, the campaign filed a demand for arbitration against her seeking $1.5 million, on the ground that her lawsuit violated the parties' nondisclosure agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has since held, in a 2021 decision, that the agreement is invalid and unenforceable.

Ms. Denson then filed a supplemental complaint alleging post-employment retaliation. She asserted that the campaign violated the city law when it filed for arbitration in response to her complaint, and she moved for summary judgment on that claim. The campaign opposed with a two-page affidavit from its former chief operating officer, Michael S. Glassner, who stated that the campaign had a "good faith belief that [plaintiff] had breached [the NDA]."

The trial court denied Ms. Denson's motion, and the First Department affirmed in 2022. The appellate court concluded then that the Glassner affidavit was enough to raise a triable issue of fact. Thursday's decision stressed the limits of that earlier ruling. "However, we did not find that defendant conclusively established that it had a legitimate motive for bringing the arbitration," the panel wrote.

Discovery followed, including Mr. Glassner's deposition. The campaign then moved for summary judgment dismissing every claim in Ms. Denson's amended complaint and amended supplemental complaint. Ms. Denson cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the retaliation claim tied to the arbitration. Justice Kahn granted the campaign's motion as to that claim, and Ms. Denson's appeal, as limited by the briefs, challenged that ruling.

The panel, with Justice Manzanet-Daniels presiding, also included Justices Mendez, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke and Parker-Raso. The justices wrote that the trial court "should have denied defendant's motion for summary judgment" on the arbitration claim. Citing the First Department's 2018 decision in Watson v. Emblem Health Servs., the panel explained that a plaintiff establishes the required causal link by showing that retaliatory animus was "a motivating factor" for the employer's action.

The panel found that the campaign had met its initial burden of offering a non-retaliatory reason for the arbitration. Ms. Denson, in turn, produced enough evidence to raise a triable question whether that reason was pretextual.

The court pointed first to changes in Mr. Glassner's account. In his affidavit, he stated that the campaign brought the arbitration because it believed Ms. Denson's complaint contained "certain" disparaging and "sensationalist allegations" that "far exceeded what she was required to allege in order to state viable" discrimination claims. At his deposition two years later, Mr. Glassner testified that filing the arbitration was his personal decision and that he believed every substantive paragraph of her complaint violated the agreement.

According to the panel, Mr. Glassner "could not describe how he distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate allegations for purposes of enforcing the NDA and could not specify which allegations were actually unnecessary for plaintiff to pursue this litigation."

The court then turned to the size of the demand. Ms. Denson submitted evidence that the campaign "was unable to articulate, let alone establish, any consequential damages stemming from the alleged breach of the non-disclosure agreement," the panel wrote. Mr. Glassner testified that the $1.5 million figure "c[a]me from" discussions with counsel. He also testified that it was "hard to know" whether the campaign "los[t] a dollar anywhere because . . . [plaintiff] filed this complaint."

"This testimony raises factual questions about whether the Campaign selected $1.5 million in damages arbitrarily to unlawfully silence plaintiff from exercising her legal rights," the panel wrote.

Ms. Denson also introduced evidence of similar lawsuits that the campaign had filed against former staffers alleging discrimination. "These lawsuits, together with the foregoing evidence, could lead a jury to conclude that enforcement of the NDA was merely pretext for discrimination," the court wrote. The panel said it had considered the campaign's remaining arguments and found them "unavailing."

In a separate ruling on the same docket, the court granted a motion by Lift Our Voices to file an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief in the appeal.

Lawyers for Ms. Denson included Emma L. Freeman of Pace Freeman LLP. The campaign was represented by Jeffrey Gavenman of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP. Benjamin D. White of Bloch & White LLP represented Lift Our Voices.

The ruling, reported as 2026 NY Slip Op 06197, reinstates the arbitration-based retaliation claim. The slip opinion remains uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.