Bank defeats race discrimination claim

Where a former bank employee asserted multiple claims for race discrimination, but there was no evidence that he was treated differently than other employees based on his race, the bank prevails on summary judgment.

Background

Courtney Edmond began working for Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC in 2015. Two years later, Edmond started a new import and export business, CLE Deals LLC, as a side business. Although required to, Edmond did not request the necessary clearance from Wells Fargo.

In 2019 and 2020, several suspicious transactions involving CLE Deals’s business account at Wells Fargo prompted the bank to investigate Edmond and the account. The investigation revealed that Edmond could not explain the source of the funds deposited into CLE Deals’s account. Because of the risk Edmond’s business dealings posed to Wells Fargo, the bank terminated Edmond’s employment.

During the investigation into CLE Deals’s account, Edmond raised concerns about the experience Black customers have while banking at Wells Fargo. Edmond now sues Wells Fargo, claiming that it terminated his employment because of his race and the discriminatory treatment of which he accused the bank. Wells Fargo and Edmond both move for summary judgment.

National origin discrimination

Edmond’s charge does not mention discrimination based on national origin. Even construing the charge liberally, a discrimination claim based on national origin does not relate to the original complaint nor would a reasonable investigation develop such a claim. Edmond’s national original claim, therefore, fails as procedurally barred.

Moreover, Edmond abandoned the claim by not responding to the arguments Wells Fargo made regarding the claim in its motion for summary judgment. For this reason, Edmond’s national origin claim also fails to the extent he brings the claim under § 1981.

Wrongful termination

To establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination under Title VII, Edmond must show that: (1) he “is a member of a protected class;” (2) he “suffered an adverse employment action;” (3) “at the time the employer took the adverse employment action [he] was performing at a level that met [his] employer’s legitimate expectations” and (4) “the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant outside the protected class.”

Here, Edmond has not identified who replaced him in his position nor has he presented any evidence that the position remained open. Further, Edmond offers no evidence that Wells Fargo retained other employees who faced similar questions about their personal finances.

Disparate treatment

Edmond alleges that Wells Fargo treated him differently than it treated similarly situated employees outside his protected class. However Edmond offers nothing more than conclusory allegations, interview answers from other Wells Fargo employees during the investigation into Edmond’s ethics complaint and four news articles about discrimination at Wells Fargo. None of this material suggests that Wells Fargo treated Edmond differently than other employees based on his race.

Failure to promote

Edmond offers no evidence that he applied – or even attempted to apply – for a promotion. And Edmond offers no evidence that Wells Fargo stood in the way of his advancement in any way, not to mention in a way that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.

Retaliation

Edmond points to two possible protected activities: the comments he made about discrimination on the April 2020 calls and his FINRA complaint. Neither the person who recommended terminating Edmond’s employment nor the person who actually fired him knew about Edmond’s complaints about discrimination when they made their respective decisions to recommend termination and actually fire Edmond. Likewise, Edmond offers no evidence that they knew about his FINRA complaint. As a result, Edmond’s prima facie claim falters on the causal requirement.

Disparate impact

The court has reviewed the documents attached to Edmond’s amended complaint, to his brief in opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion and to his briefs in support of his own motion for summary judgment. Nowhere does the court find more than a “scintilla of evidence” that Wells Fargo’s hiring and promotion practices have a discriminatory impact.

Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason

Wells Fargo says it fired Edmond because he violated Wells Fargo policy by improperly handling his personal finances. In support of this, Wells Fargo offers evidence that three people determined that Edmond had violated Wells Fargo policy with his CLE Deals account. Wells Fargo also offers evidence of its guidance to employees that failure to comply with its Conflicts of Interest and Outside Activity Policy “may result in a corrective action, including termination.”

Edmond offers insufficient evidence that Wells Fargo’s proffered reason for firing him “is actually pretext for discrimination.” Thus, even if Edmond presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination in any of the forms he alleges, his claims would still fail.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Edmond v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-139, Feb. 3, 2022. EDVA at Richmond (Gibney). VLW 022-3-054. 20 pp.