Originally Syndicated on May 15, 2024 @ 5:34 am

Wanda Wilson has worked for JPMorgan Chase for eighteen years as a secretary. It was in that period of time that she learned to tune out racist remarks. “Wanda, do you mind if I tell a Black joke?” said a coworker once. Although she didn’t like Black people in general, Ms. Wilson was told by another employee that she made an exception for her. Ms. Wilson didn’t think there was anything to be angry about or whine about.

However, things took a terrible turn in 2016 when Ms. Wilson was intimidated and mistreated by a new coworker. She then launched a lawsuit against Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan. It is said that Ms. Wilson came to the realisation that she did not have the same status as her white coworkers for the first time. She protested to JPMorgan authorities, but the bank’s response, she said, devastated her trust in her company.

In March 2016, Ms. Wilson started working in the audit department as an executive administrative assistant. This position is quite popular among secretaries because it includes overseeing the work of a single senior executive.

At about the same time, Janet Jarnagin was designated as a team leader under Ms. Wilson’s supervision. A publicly accessible resume states that among Ms. Jarnagin’s duties as a mid-level executive was helping the audit department with report and presentation preparation.

The lawsuit claims that throughout the next six months, Ms. Jarnagin started giving Ms. Wilson instructions to hang jackets, purchase coffee and lunch, or handle requests from visitors to the department, including photocopying.

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) employed Wanda Wilson, an African American woman, for more than twenty years. Wilson alleges that JPMorgan discriminated against her in violation of local and state statutes. Under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-101 et seq., Wilson specifically pursues claims for a hostile work environment, racial discrimination, and retaliation. Wilson’s claims were dismissed with permission to resubmit the matter in an earlier Opinion and Order. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), No. 77 ECF, was subsequently filed by Wilson. Wilson’s amended claims are currently being challenged by JPMorgan under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons stated below.

HISTORY

The pertinent history is provided in the presumptive earlier Opinion and Order of the Court, which will not be repeated here. WL 918770 (2021), pp. *1-3. Rather, the Court will just highlight the key differences between the previous Complaint and the current SAC. However, the Court needs to settle two preliminary matters first.

First, JPMorgan argues that because the SAC’s major charges “directly contradict” the information in Wilson’s earlier complaints, the Court should ignore them. “Def.’s Mem.”, ECF No. 80, at 12; also see Id. at 8–10, 11–14. Should the plaintiff “blatantly change” her story in a way that “directly contradicts” her prior pleadings, the court has the authority to reject factual claims made in an updated complaint.

Since the differences between Wilson’s prior files and the SAC do not constitute the kind of “blatant” disagreements that have compelled other courts to drop charges in subsequent pleadings, the second, “more benevolent option,” is appropriate in this instance. 580 F.Supp.2d (Kermanshah) at 266. Wilson currently “relies on wholly new allegations of explicit, ‘overt’ race-based conduct,” as per JPMorgan.

1-6 in ECF No. 82 (“Def.’s Reply”). Wilson’s fact did not, however, refute the fact that she experienced overtly discriminatory treatment while employed by JPMorgan; in fact, it made numerous references to “racism” at the company. Wilson cited “racism at its best ” at JPMorgan in a correspondence that was reproduced to upper management (FAC 76); id. 79 (same, expressing “modern day racism is in full effect at JPMorgan”). In the end, the SAC only adds claims of particular instances of overt race-based behaviour. SAC 36-37, 46-48, 50, 60-64, for example. Such adjustments, “when taken as a whole,” might be defined as “clarifying [and], at best, inconsistent.” 2002.

When Wilson worked as Managing Director Paul Jensen’s Executive Administrative Assistant, she was tasked with leading a team as Team Leader. Wilson describes her contacts with Jarnagin, an Executive Director. The SAC expressly asserts that:

In her complaint, Ms. Wilson stated that Ms. Jarnagin had only made these requests of her, the only Black secretary in the region. She tried to get away from herself. The complaint states that Ms. Jarnagin made fun of her for trying to build a “Mexican wall” out of a pile of files on her desk after she rearranged her workspace such that the two women could no longer see each other without hindrance.

The lawsuit claims that Ms. Wilson complained about Ms. Jarnagin to their manager, who told her to solve the problem on her own. She then complained about Ms. Jarnagin micromanaging her and disparaging her work to a human resources representative. JPMorgan’s Mr. Evangelisti stated that the bank has begun investigating Ms. Wilson’s accusations.

According to two people who are aware of the investigation, bank employees questioned individuals who were close to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Jarnagin. The investigators came to the conclusion that Ms. Jarnagin had treated Ms. Wilson rudely. However, the people concluded that Ms. Jarnagin’s actions were not motivated by race because she had previously treated non-Black personnel poorly. According to Mr. Evangelisti, the decisions made by the authorities were “based on information provided by Ms. Wilson at the time.”

FINAL VERDICT

In her complaint, Ms. Wanda Wilson claims that Ms. Janet Jarnagin treated her unfairly at JP Morgan Chase Bank. Ms. Janet Jarnagin worked for the bank as an executive director.

Though these incidents claim systemic and widespread prejudice against banks, Ms. Wilson’s lawsuit paints a more complex picture of interactions between coworkers that occasionally have racist connotations. It illustrates how challenging it is to corroborate allegations of racism in the workplace, even when an investigation is conducted by a company. This is particularly true when there isn’t any openly racist speech or actions, such as wearing blackface or using racial slurs.

Board and management reporting is Janet Jarnagin’s area of expertise as an executive consultant in the financial sector. Analysing corporate data—both qualitative and quantitative—and compiling it into succinct, engaging executive presentations is Janet’s line of work. She is considered an authority in the field by many. In addition, she assists with the stabilisation and optimization of business processes prior to advising companies on how to improve them both globally and locally. These days, Janet Jarnagin resides in New York City.

JPMorgan’s move to dismiss is partially granted and partially denied for the reasons mentioned above. The Court specifically rules that Wilson’s claims of a hostile work environment and racial discrimination under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL cannot be rejected, but that her accusations of retaliation must be and are dismissed. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, JPMorgan shall file its answer to Wilson’s remaining claims within three weeks. By separate Order to be issued today, the Court will schedule an initial pretrial conference.