Wells Fargo must face lawsuit over sham job interviews
By Jonathan Stempel
July 29 (Reuters) -A U.S. judge ordered Wells Fargo WFC.N to face a lawsuit alleging it defrauded shareholders by proclaiming its commitment to hiring diversity, even as it conducted sham job interviews of non-white and female applicants it had no plans to hire.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco, who dismissed a version of the lawsuit last August, on Monday found direct and indirect evidence that the San Francisco-based bank intended to defraud shareholders about its hiring practices.
She rejected arguments that there was insufficient proof that fake interviews were widespread, or that top officials including Chief Executive Charles Scharf knew about it.
Shareholders challenged 11 bank statements touting the success of a policy adopted in March 2020 that at least 50% of candidates interviewed for jobs paying at least $100,000 be minorities, women or people in other disadvantaged groups.
They cited interviews with former employees, an internal whistleblower email, and the sudden retirement of a senior wealth manager who allegedly pressured the whistleblower into conducting fake interviews.
"The employee-submitted complaints, the peculiar timing of [the manager's] departure, and defendants' demonstrated focus on diversity issues supports a strong inference of [fraudulent intent] that is cogent and at least as compelling as an opposing inference that defendants remained oblivious," Thompson wrote.
In a statement, Wells Fargo said it would continue defending against the lawsuit. It noted that the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission closed investigations into its hiring practices without taking action.
"Wells Fargo is deeply dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion and does not tolerate discrimination in any part of our business," it added.
Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The fourth-largest U.S. bank has since 2016 faced many complaints and public criticism over its business practices, and remains under a Federal Reserve cap on asset growth.
Wells Fargo's share price fell 10.2% over two days in June 2022, wiping out more than $17 billion of market value, after the New York Times reported the Justice Department probe.
The case is SEB Investment Management AB et al v Wells Fargo & Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-03811.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
