Originally Syndicated on June 8, 2024 @ 7:00 am
Wanda Wilson has been a secretary at JPMorgan Chase for 18 years. During that time, she developed the ability to ignore racial slurs. A coworker once questioned Wanda, “Wanda, do you mind if I tell a Black joke?” Another employee told Ms. Wilson that while she didn’t like Black people in general, she made an exception for her. Ms. Wilson didn’t see a cause to be upset and complain about it.
But things turned bad in 2016 when a new colleague began to bully and order Ms. Wilson. She then filed against JPMorgan and its CEO, Jamie Dimon. According to the claim, Ms. Wilson realized for the first time that she was not on equal footing with her white coworkers. She protested to JPMorgan authorities, but the bank’s response, she said, devastated her trust in her company.
Ms. Wilson joined the audit department as an executive administrative assistant in March 2016, a highly sought-after post among secretaries since it involves managing work for one senior executive in that department.
Janet Jarnagin was also assigned to Ms. Wilson’s supervisor as a team leader around the same time. According to a publicly available résumé, Ms. Jarnagin’s responsibilities while working as a mid level executive included assisting the audit department in the preparation of presentations and reports.
According to the lawsuit, Ms. Jarnagin began instructing Ms. Wilson to hang jackets, buy coffee and lunch, or carry out requests from visitors to the department, such as making photocopies, during the following six months.
The Order Against Janet Jarnagin
Wanda Wilson, an African American woman who worked for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) for over two decades, claims that JPMorgan discriminated against her in violation of state and municipal laws. Wilson expressly pursues claims for hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation 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’s allegations were rejected with leave to file an amended case in an earlier Opinion and Order. Wilson then filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). No. 77 ECF (“SAC”). JPMorgan now attempts to dismiss Wilson’s modified claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also ECF No. 79. The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons stated below.
Background of the Case Against Janet Jarnagin
The relevant background is set forth in the Court’s earlier Opinion and Order, which is presumed and will not be recounted here. 2021 WL 918770, at *1-3. Instead, the Court will simply explain the significant distinctions between the earlier Complaint and the present SAC. But first, the Court must resolve two preliminary issues.
First, JPMorgan maintains that the Court should overlook key accusations in the SAC because they “directly contradict” the facts stated in Wilson’s prior complaints. ECF No. 80 (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 12; see also Id. at 8-10, 11-14. A court may dismiss factual assertions in an updated complaint if the plaintiff “blatantly changes” her account in a way that “directly contradicts” her previous pleadings.
The second, “more benevolent option” is justified in this case since the disparities between the SAC and Wilson’s previous filings are not the type of “blatant” conflicts that have forced other courts to dismiss charges in updated pleadings. 580 F.Supp.2d at 266 (Kermanshah). Wilson now “relies on wholly new allegations of explicit, ‘overt’ race-based conduct,” according to JPMorgan.
ECF No. 82 (“Def.’s Reply”), at 1-6. However, Wilson’s FAC did not dispute that she was subjected to overtly racist behavior while working at JPMorgan; in fact, it contained many references to “racism” at JPMorgan. FAC 76 (reproducing communication to high management in which Wilson cited “racism at its best” at JPMorgan); 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 behavior. 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
Wilson recounts interactions with Janet Jarnagin, an Executive Director who was assigned to serve as Team Leader under Managing Director Paul Jensen when Wilson was his Executive Administrative Assistant. The SAC specifically claims that:
Ms. Wilson claimed in her complaint how Ms. Jarnagin had made these demands just of her — the lone Black secretary in the area. She made an attempt to detach herself. According to the complaint, when she adjusted her workstation so that the two ladies could no longer see each other unobstructed, Ms. Jarnagin teased her for attempting to construct a “Mexican wall” out of a stack of files on her desk.
According to the lawsuit, Ms. Wilson complained to their manager about Ms. Jarnagin, who ordered her to figure things out on her own. She then complained to a human resources representative that Ms. Jarnagin was bossing her about and slandering her job. Mr. Evangelisti of JPMorgan said the bank had started looking into Ms. Wilson’s accusations.
Two persons familiar with the inquiry said that bank authorities interrogated people in the near proximity of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Jarnagin. The investigators decided that Ms. Jarnagin had been impolite to Ms. Wilson. However, because Ms. Jarnagin had previously been unpleasant to non-Black staff, the individuals judged that her behavior was not racially motivated. Mr. Evangelisti stated that the authorities’ determinations were “based on information provided by Ms. Wilson at the time.”
CONCLUSION
Ms. Wanda Wilson’s complaint against JP Morgan Chase bank argues that Ms. Janet Jarnagin discriminated against her. Ms. Janet Jarnagin served as an executive director in the bank.
However, although such instances allege widespread and systemic discrimination involving banks, Ms. Wilson’s lawsuit presents a more nuanced picture of encounters between coworkers that sometimes have racist overtones. It demonstrates how difficult it is to verify charges of racism in the workplace, even when a business performs an inquiry. That is especially true in the absence of overtly racist conversation or behavior, such as a racial slur or blackface.
Janet Jarnagin is a finance sector executive consultant who specializes in board and management reporting. Janet earns a profession by evaluating business data, both qualitative and quantitative, and combining it into short and interesting executive presentations. She is widely regarded as an expert in the field. She also helps to stabilize and refine business processes before making advice to firms on how to enhance them on a global and micro level. Janet Jarnagin is now based in New York City.
For the reasons stated above, JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Court holds that Wilson’s hostile work environment and race discrimination claims under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL cannot be dismissed, but her retaliation claims 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.
