This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Gender Discrimination
Retaliation

Miriam Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank Inc., Charanpreet Singh, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Sep. 24, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 2, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:15-cv-01303-KJM-CMK Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Larry L. Baumbach
(Law Office of Larry L. Baumbach)


Defendant

Ana M. Stancu

Thomas R. Kaufman
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Marlene Nicolas
(Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff worked for Wells Fargo Bank NA as a Business Banking Specialist. Plaintiff filed suit against her employer and supervisor Charanpreet Singh, in connection with an employment dispute.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Singh harassed her and discriminated against her because of her Mexican heritage and because she was a woman. She also contended that he harassed her due to her pregnancy and that he pushed her to recommend products that were unethical and confusing to consumers. She claimed that his behavior ultimately made her resign. Furthermore, Wells Fargo knew about Singh's behavior but took no corrective action.

Plaintiff brought an employment action against the bank and Singh, her supervisor, asserting causes of action for employment discrimination (gender discrimination), employment discrimination (retaliation), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent supervision.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended in its motion for summary judgment that plaintiff voluntarily resigned her employment after an internal investigation revealed that she entered a false driver's license expiration date for a customer so that he could receive a debit card. Furthermore, it claimed that several of her claims were time-barred, and that all her claims were meritless.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 21, 2015.


#124956

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390