Dive Brief:
- Citigroup’s human resources department “spearheaded” a harassment campaign against a former managing director, involving a “deeply misogynistic” and one-sided set of investigations that ultimately resulted in her constructive discharge, the former employee alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday.
- After she allegedly endured “unrelenting and egregious sexual harassment, manipulation, and grooming” at the hands of the company’s former head of wealth, the worker said the HR department opened two “baseless” investigations into her conduct that ruined her reputation and left her no choice but to leave (Carreon v. Citigroup Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.).
- Citigroup has denied the allegations. “This statement has absolutely no merit and we will demonstrate that through the legal process,” Citi spokesman Mark Costiglio said in a statement.
Dive Insight:
According to the plaintiff, the complaint speaks to a pervasive culture and history of misogyny at the firm — and on Wall Street more broadly.
“Wall Street Firms have felt emboldened to discriminate and harass because they could sweep the stories of their victims under the rug by forcing them into mandatory, confidential arbitration,” the plaintiff alleged in her complaint, crediting her ability to file the lawsuit to the 2022 passage of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.
The lawsuit alleged a number of actions by the HR department that could raise red flags for legal and HR experts.
For example, the worker alleged she was being investigated for “bullying,” although she said bullying behavior was tolerated and promoted among male colleagues. She alleged she was asked whether she was “indiscreet” or “a gossip.” When she provided a list of individuals who could attest to her character, “HR never reached out to any of them,” she alleged.
The second investigation was into whether “she had gotten ahead at Citi because she had special access” to the then-head of wealth.
“The HR investigators subjected [the plaintiff] to a two-hour interrogation about this allegation. More inquisitorial than investigative in tenor, the HR representatives posed questions as predetermined conclusions, leaving [her] with the clear and unmistakable impression that HR had prejudged the outcome,” according to the complaint.
She then learned only she — and not the colleague she was alleged to have “special access” to — was under investigation, she said.
Investigations into employee conduct should “ensure fairness and lack of bias,” legal experts have previously emphasized. Overall, while HR isn’t held to the same standards as a court of law, HR professionals should approach investigations in good faith. HR should also plan on talking to witnesses and investigating counter-claims that arise when speaking to the accused, experts said.
HR professionals and departments have received extra scrutiny over the past year as high-profile cases of questionable HR department behavior have come to light. In July, a chief people officer’s intimate moment with her company’s CEO went viral after it was caught on a “kiss cam” at a concert, and in December, SHRM contended with an $11.5 million court fee after a jury concluded the HR giant had engaged in race discrimination and retaliation.
