Wells Fargo’s Senior Management Must Be Held Responsible for Bank Fraud

The arrogance of Wells Fargo was apparent when it announced earlier this month that it would phase out a questionable “sales goals” program in Jan. 2017. Those sales goals created the incentive for 5,300 Wells Fargo employees (since fired for ethical violations) to create some 2 million fraudulent customer bank accounts. The bank announced Wednesday that it will discontinue the sales goals by the end of the week. Meanwhile,  Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf  has been forced to give up $41 million in outstanding stock awards and to appear twice before Congressional committees. And ex-Wells Fargo employees have filed a class action lawsuit seeking $2.6 billion in damages, –  Ed.

A few years ago, I opened an account at a local branch of Wells Fargo Bank for a limited purpose. Once that purpose was accomplished, I intended to immediately close the account.

A young bank officer who facilitated the transaction persuaded me to keep the account open. He assured me that he had set up my account in such a way that I would never lose the account balance of $100 deposit through the churning of bank fees.

Of course, in less than a year, all the money was gone, usurped by Wells Fargo in bank fees. Meanwhile, I was assaulted  with notices, offers and credit card applications. One paper in this mountain of paperwork probably contained an obtuse notice that my account was being transferred to a different charge-bearing vehicle. I complained to the bank, which said it was my fault, and then I put the matter behind me, chalking it up to yet another example of pervasive and persistent financial bank fraud in America.

So this week, it was with interest that I read about the Wells Fargo’s practice of using unrealistic sales goals to pressure employees to set up phony accounts and cheat customers. The bank has fired 5,300 employees for ethical violations and announced it would eliminate all product sales goals in retail banking, effective January 1, 2017.

Seriously?

Remember the financial crisis of 2007, which propelled the world into a deep recession, from which many will never recover?  How much of the Wall Street meltdown was due to unethical practices promulgated by massive financial institutions ( like Wells Fargo) which required workers to lie,  cheat, and steal  in order to remain on the payroll?

Why is John Stumpf, Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo, still working there?

Senior management of Wells Fargo is responsible for the fraud on its customers, not the underlings with families to feed in an unforgiving economy.  The bank employees who were fired for ethical violations are culpable and shouldn’t be working in a position of trust. But Wells Fargo created the incentive for the unethical behavior  of its employees by adopting unrealistic sales goals to increase profits year after year.  Indeed,  Wells Fargo plans to continue enforcing these “product sales goals” until January 2017.

If America permits the senior management of Wells Fargo  to scapegoat its own employees and avoid responsibility for financial fraud, aren’t we inviting another financial meltdown?  Haven’t we learned anything?

Wells Fargo CEO John Stump needs to go. IMMEDIATELY!

The bank has been fined $100 million by the U.S. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and ordered to pay back consumers harmed by its actions.

Wells Fargo & Company, headquartered in San Francisco, is one of the nation’s biggest banks. It has $1.9 trillion in assets and, according to the company, serves one in three households in the United States. Wells Fargo & Company was ranked No. 27 on Fortune’s 2016 rankings of America’s largest corporations.

Outfoxed: Carlson Settles for $20 Million & Apology

Former Fox News Anchor Gretchen Carlson  has received among the largest payouts in history  – $20 million – to settle a sexual harassment case.

Ironically, the case was settled not by the defendant, former Fox News chairperson Roger Ailes, but by his former employer, 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox news.  Ailes, 76, won’t pay a dime. (Not only that,  Ailes received a $40 million payout from Fox when he left his job under pressure in July.)

It is speculated Tuesday that Carlson, a former Miss America,  secretly tape recorded Ailes, whom she alleged refused to renew her contract after she refused to have sexual relations with  him.

The largest sexual harassment award in history is believed to have occurred in 2011 when a federal jury in Tennessee awarded $95 million to Ashley Alford, a young employee who was  sexual  harassed and physically assaulted by a supervisor  at the rent-to-own company, The Aaron’s Inc. The award included $15 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. U.S. District Court Judge J.  Michael Reagan subsequently reduced  the amount the jury awarded Alford on the sexual harassment claim from $4 million to $300,000 pursuant to a federal statutory cap. on damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Judge Reagan also vacated $50 million of the punitive damages award. That still left Alford with about $41 million.

In addition to the monetary award, 21st Century Fox issued a press release stating:  “We sincerely regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was no treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve.”

Meanwhile, two other women at Fox reportedly were offered settlements after complaining about sexual harassment.

Carlson’s complaint appears to have prompted the sudden departure of Fox personality Greta Van Susteren from the network on Tuesday. Susteren had publicly defended Ailes and accused Carlson of retaliating against Ailes after  being fired due to poor ratings.

Carlson received little support generally from her former Fox colleagues. In addition to Van Susteren, more than a dozen top personalities at Fox News including Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and Kimberly Guilfoyle defended Ailes against claims of sexual misconduct.

Taxpayers Subsidize Age Discrimination by Feds

It is ironic that our nation’s largest employer, the U.S. government, is one of the worst offenders with respect to age discrimination in hiring.

President Barack Obama in 2010 unilaterally signed an executive order that allows federal agencies to by-pass older workers, ignore merit and qualifications, and to hire “recent graduates” and “entry-level jobseekers” for permanent federal jobs. Since the vast majority of recent graduates and entry-lvel job seekers are under the age of 40, Obama’s order has an obvious discriminatory impact on older workers. Yet, there was no public outcry when Obama signed this order – not from the AARP or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama couched his action in terms of increasing diversity in federal hiring but he offered no evidence that it was necessary to resort to age discrimination, which is illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Obama’s order operates as an exemption to the ADEA. Furthermore, Obama’s order discriminates against older African Americans and Hispanics, as well as older whites.

Not surprisingly, older applicants face a mountain of discrimination when applying for lucrative federal positions.

James W. Moeller, then 57, filed a federal age discrimination lawsuit last year after he applied for several positions an attorney at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FEC) in Washington, DC. He was never  granted an interview despite the fact that he is a Harvard Law School graduate with 30 years of federal energy regulatory experience.  Moeller has represented clients before the FEC, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission. He is a leading scholar on federal energy regulatory law, having published numerous scholarly articles on the topic.

Meanwhile, the FEC granted interviews to younger, less qualified applicants, who were subsequently hired.

How come a guy like Moeller who objectively has superb qualifications could not even get an interview with the FEC? Could it be … uh … age discrimination?

Moeller’s  lawsuit states the FEC “claims that it cannot discriminate on the basis of age because it has no knowledge of the ages of its job applicants. This claim is based on the fact that job applicants generally do not include their dates of birth on their resumes.”  Moeller argues – and basic common sense dictates – that employers can infer the age of a job applicant based upon the applicant’s job history.

It is arguably a much greater failing for the federal government to discriminate against older workers because  we are shareholders in the enterprise through our tax dollars. In addition, discrimination by the federal government sends a signal to the private sector that age discrimination is acceptable and will be tolerated.

In my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I explore other ways in which all three branches of the federal government have overlooked, abetted and trivialized age discrimination in employment. I also show how the ADEA provides far less protection for older workers than is provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to workers on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and religion.

*See Moeller v. Bay, Case No, 1:15-cv-00724 (2015) U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Rough Justice? Case Filed a Day Late

What a difference a day makes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio recently upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an IRS criminal investigator in 2012 who charged he was denied several promotions because he is a white male. The grounds for dismissal were that Frank Rembisz filed his civil rights lawsuit one day after the expiration of a 90-day statute of limitations.

Here’s what happened.

Rembisz filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Treasury Department that he was denied several promotions because he is a white male. The Treasury Department mailed him and his attorney a “final notice” that his complaint was denied on March 15, 2013. Rembisz had 90-days after receipt of the final notice of dismissal to file a civil lawsuit in federal court.

Rembisz filed his lawsuit on June 21, 2013 and the Treasury Department filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was filed after the expiration of the 90-day statute of limitations.

Rembisz argued that the case was timely filed because the clock did not start ticking until his attorney received the final notice on March 25, 2013.

A three-judge panel on the appeals court disagreed  and affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Rembisz’ case.

The appeals court wrote that its “presume(s)” the 90-day limitations term began running on the fifth day following the mailing of the right to sue notice. Moreover, the appeals court said the statute of limitations is triggered when the complainant – not his or her attorney – receives the final notice.

Rembisz  also submitted an affidavit from his attorney’s secretary stating that she received the Treasury Department’s notice that Rembisz complaint had been denied on March 22, 2013.

But the appeals court said “that still makes his complaint late by one day.”

The case is Rembisz v. Lew, No. 15-2279 (6th Cir. 2016).