Swiftly Systems Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Case Name: Jiin Ko v. Swiftly Systems, LLC, Henry Kim, Littler Mendelson P.C., and Jean Schmidt

Case Type: Discrimination and Harassment; Retaliation; Executive Representation

Filed in: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case No.: 25-cv-1833

Case Summary

On March 4, 2025, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of Jiin Ko, a former executive at Swiftly System, LLC (“Swiftly”), alleging discrimination and retaliation against the company and its CEO, Henry Kim, and aiding and abetting retaliation against Swiftly’s counsel, Littler Mendelsohn, P.C. and Jean Schmidt, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and § 740 of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, who is Korean-American, was hired in 2023 as Chief People Officer and quickly became interim Chief Financial Officer and manager of the IT Department. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Kim, the CEO, repeatedly made bigoted comments to Ms. Ko about Koreans, women, parents, and caregivers, and that the company engaged in unlawful accounting practices. When Ms. Ko complained about the discrimination and accounting practices to Mr. Kim, the Complaint says, he retaliated against her by downgrading her responsibilities and continuing to subject her to discriminatory remarks.

The unlawful retaliation continued, the Complaint alleges, after Ms. Ko filed a formal complaint. Swiftly, apparently acting on the advice of Defendant Jean Schmidt, its counsel at Littler Mendelson, placed Ms. Ko on an involuntary leave that it extended numerous times, as Littler Mendelson conducted a putative independent investigation of Ms. Ko’s claims, the lawsuit alleges.

The pleadings say that the unlawful retaliation against Ms. Ko culminated in early 2025. Three days after Ms. Ko filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Complaint alleges, Ms. Schmidt informed Ms. Ko’s lawyers that her position was being eliminated.

In addition to monetary damages, the Complaint seeks an injunction preventing Defendants from terminating Ms. Ko and ordering her reinstatement.

On March 20, 2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to reinstate Ms. Ko effective March 27, 2025 and enjoining them from suspending or terminating her. Defendants asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the injunction, but the Court of Appeals declined.