How Carson Group Ex-CMO's 'Toxic' Culture Suit Might End

The lawsuit arises from Gulick's allegation that in late 2022, when she represented Carson Group at a conference, a firm employee sexually assaulted an attendee. Carson Group admits in its response that "an attendee at the conference alleged unwelcome/non-consensual sexual conduct with a Carson non-managerial employee," who denied the accusation. 

Gulick called the firm's then-chief of staff to inform her about the complaint, and a week after the conference was assured by Carson's president that the assault report would be handled properly, the complaint says. "It was not," the former CMO alleges. 

Carson Group admits it told Gulick an investigation was ongoing and would be handled consistently with its written policies, while denying the probe was handled inappropriately.

Gulick also contends she objected to "the alleged assailant continuing to be employed by Carson Group, being allowed to travel to conferences, and the risks that both posed to female employees and conference attendees. The following week (she) also discussed her concerns with the alleged assailant's supervisor."

Responding to this point, Carson contends Gulick violated the firm's written policy protecting the investigation's confidentiality and the complainant's privacy by disclosing the complaint to  others, "including the supervisor of the accused non-managerial employee."

The firm also acknowledges in its filing that the "accused non-managerial employee traveled to a single work-related conference and that no concerns were raised about this employee's behavior/conduct by anyone at the conference — or at any time thereafter."

On this point, Palmer said, "Carson Group is trying to argue that it properly handled the complaint and that it did not put its female employees at risk by retaining the accused assailant and allowing him to continue to attend conferences. While the absence of any further alleged non-consensual sexual conduct is certainly a good thing, it does not establish that women were safe."

Palmer also noted Carson Group plans to argue that Gulick and Carson mutually decided her employment would end. "This is a claim we sometimes see, although in my experience, there is rarely any merit to the argument that following complaints, an employee left her job voluntarily," he said.

An Unusual Plaintiff

Gulick's complaint is unusual in that it comes from such a high-level employee, according to Palmer.

"While we certainly see discrimination and retaliation occurring at all organization levels, it is uncommon for someone in the upper echelons to report a toxic work environment or retaliation. It takes a lot to stand up and speak out against discrimination, especially in a public lawsuit, but it is only through this type of action that companies will be held accountable," he said.

It remains to be seen whether Carson Group will seek to settle with its former CMO.

"In any discrimination or retaliation case, a defendant faces the prospect of an adverse liability finding, resulting in an award of damages to the plaintiff, as well as plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. While it depends on a number of factors, including the plaintiff's total economic loss and emotional distress, economic exposure in these types of cases can be in the millions," Palmer said.

"However, the financial loss from losing a trial may pale in comparison to the company's reputational harm, both internal and external," he said. "A case like this can change the way that job candidates and clients see the company and also drastically impact employee morale."

Pictured: Mary Kate Gulick and Burt White