The Lawsuit Against Saks

Download the Complaint (PDF)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss.
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SUHAIL KWATRA,
Plaintiff,

v.

SAKS GLOBAL LLC,
Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Suhail Kwatra (“Kwatra”) brings this complaint against Defendant Saks Global LLC (“Saks”) and alleges as follows:

Nature of the Case

1. This case arises from a calculated campaign by a global luxury retailer to punish and silence one of its most valuable employees after he dared to explore other professional opportunities.

2. Kwatra was not a marginal employee. For more than two decades, he was among Saks’ most profitable and influential personal stylists, responsible for millions of dollars in annual revenue and deep relationships with elite clients and luxury brands. When Saks learned that Kwatra was considering an opportunity with a competing luxury retailer—and when he declined to accept a retention bonus without assurances about his future global role—Saks responded not with negotiation, but with retaliation.

3. Saks launched a vindictive and unlawful scheme to destroy Kwatra’s reputation, coerce him into signing false and unenforceable documents, and ensure that he could not take his talents, clients, or relationships elsewhere. Acting under the guise of “asset protection,” Saks intimidated and confined Kwatra, extracted a false statement and forced him to sign a promissory note for nearly half a million dollars—an amount Saks knew was not owed. Saks then weaponized and mischaracterized those documents as an admission to criminal conduct in order to wrongfully terminate Kwatra, sabotage his job offer with a competitor, and defame him publicly.

4. At the center of Saks’ narrative is a claim that Kwatra ran a “$400,000 scam” involving gift cards. That accusation is false. The reality—known to and encouraged by Saks management—is that all gift cards at issue were issued pursuant to Saks’ own promotions or created by managers using their credentials, and were distributed in accordance with longstanding, management-approved practices designed to retain high-spending clients. Kwatra himself could not generate gift cards, and Saks knew it. Nevertheless, Saks seized on approximately $11,000 in gift cards as a pretext to fabricate a vastly inflated figure based on speculation spanning nearly a decade.

5. Saks obtained Kwatra’s signature on the promissory note and a handwritten statement through coercion, intimidation, and deception—promising confidentiality and no criminal prosecution, and intimidating him from leaving until he signed the documents. Having secured those documents, Saks immediately broke its promises: it contacted law enforcement, interfered with Kwatra’s prospective employment, reached out to his clients, and fed false and misleading information to the media.

6. Why would Saks deploy such extraordinary resources against a single former stylist? Because Kwatra’s departure posed an existential threat to Saks’ business relationships. By destroying Kwatra’s reputation, Saks sought to retain his clients and brand relationships, deflect scrutiny from its own pervasive management failures, and shift blame amid severe financial distress, executive turnover, and mounting public reports of instability and bankruptcy risk.

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff Suhail Kwatra is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. He was employed by Saks from 2005 until November 18, 2025.

2. Defendant Saks Global LLC is a limited liability company registered in Delaware with its principal place of business at 225 Liberty Street, Floor 31, New York, New York 10281 and a usual and regular place of business at 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199.

3. The Court has personal jurisdiction under G.L. c. 223A, §§ 2 and 3 because Saks conducts and transacts business in the Commonwealth, it contracts to supply services in the Commonwealth, and the injuries and harm alleged in this Complaint were caused by Saks’ acts or omissions in the Commonwealth and harmed Kwatra in the Commonwealth.

4. Venue is appropriate pursuant to G.L. c. 223, § 1.

Facts

Kwatra was the Most Profitable Employee at the Retail Store

1. Kwatra was a highly successful personal shopper and stylist with Saks for over two decades. Kwatra worked with clients on an individual basis, developing custom styles and fashion with each of them.

2. Through his employment, Kwatra was Saks’ top-earning associate in Boston. He was responsible for developing deep relationships with the city’s elite and enhancing Saks’ reputation and profits. Kwatra has consistently ranked in Saks’ top ten most productive associates across the United States.

3. Kwatra started in the contemporary area of the Retail Store, but he quickly developed an expertise with the Retail Store’s luxury designer brands and transitioned many of his clients to this category.

4. After his initial successes, Kwatra decided to attend the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City. He attended FIT and continued to work for Saks part time in a New York City location.

5. Kwatra returned to the Retail Store in 2007 and began serving as the brand ambassador for Dolce & Gabbana. Kwatra worked in the Dolce & Gabbana boutique in the Retail Store, and he served as brand ambassador until approximately 2012.

6. After Kwatra ended his relationship with Dolce & Gabbana, the Retail Store’s general manager provided Kwatra with his own space in the Retail Store to meet with and style clients. In this space, Kwatra had an office and multiple fitting rooms.

7. Kwatra’s business exploded rapidly, and in 2015, Saks management moved him to the Fifth Avenue Club, a private location with more space to work with his clientele. Although there were roughly seven personal shoppers in the Club, Kwatra was the most profitable.

Kwatra Followed Management Instructions Relating to Gift Card Promotions and Policies

1. Throughout Kwatra’s time at Saks, the Retail Store frequently ran gift-card promotions.

2. These promotions primarily involved Saks issuing gift cards to clients based on the amount they had spent on purchases.

3. As an additional incentive to close large sales, Saks management authorized certain client purchases to be split into multiple, smaller transactions and, as a result, clients received multiple gift cards.

4. This “transaction splitting” became commonplace, as a result of client demand. Saks management often provided Kwatra and other associates with authorization to use transaction splitting in order to close large transactions.

5. In 2018, Saks hired a new manager for the Club.

6. With the Club manager’s approval, stylists continued to accommodate transaction splitting.

7. Saks policy allowed for accommodation gift cards to be distributed to clients.

8. Only managers could create accommodation gift cards using their credentials.

9. Kwatra could not create gift cards himself.

10. Management encouraged and condoned these practices for years.

Kwatra Followed Saks’ Policies Concerning Abandoned Merchandise

1. Saks management instructed stylists to clean out abandoned merchandise.

2. Stylists were encouraged to distribute or take abandoned items.

3. Saks benefited from this practice.

Kwatra’s Pay and Prospective Departure

1. Kwatra’s compensation declined as Saks’ business model changed.

2. In August 2025, Kwatra began contemplating a move to another luxury retailer.

3. He sought to remain with Saks but requested clarity about his role.

4. Saks offered a retention bonus.

5. Kwatra declined without assurances.

6. Saks learned of a competing offer.

7. Saks retaliated.

Saks Retaliates Through Coercion, Confinement, and Termination

1. On November 18, 2025, Kwatra was escorted to a locked office.

2. He was interrogated for nearly two hours.

3. He was threatened and denied counsel.

4. He was forced to sign a statement and promissory note.

5. Saks contacted law enforcement.

6. Saks interfered with his employment opportunity.

7. Saks defamed Kwatra.

Counts I–VI

Declaratory Relief
Fraudulent Inducement
Breach of Contract
Tortious Interference
Defamation
False Imprisonment

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Suhail Kwatra demands judgment in his favor against Saks Global LLC including declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court deems just.

Plaintiff,
SUHAIL KWATRA

By his Attorneys,

Jennifer B. Furey
Matthew P. Horvitz
Jake N. Tamir-Pinsky

GOULSTON & STORRS PC
Boston, Massachusetts

Dated: January 6, 2026