Lomboy v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Background

After Lomboy returned from his 2023 leave, Wells Fargo investigated an incident involving Lomboy’s opening of a bank account for a minor whom Wells Fargo claimed was unemancipated and whose account allegedly violated Wells Fargo policies. Wells Fargo terminated Lomboy after the investigation. Lomboy alleged that Wells Fargo terminated him because of his disability and medical leaves, while Wells Fargo argued that he violated company policies and obstructed the investigation.

Lomboy’s complaint asserted eleven claims, including disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, interference with protected leave, disability harassment, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment on all claims. Lomboy separately moved for the court to consider whether material filed by another party should be sealed.

Summary-Judgment Standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party shows there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if it could affect the result under the governing law. A dispute is genuine if the evidence could allow a reasonable factfinder to decide for the nonmoving party. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not decide witness credibility at this stage.

Disability Discrimination

Lomboy’s disability-discrimination claim arose under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Wells Fargo relied on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: Lomboy’s alleged policy violations and obstruction of the investigation. Lomboy disputed that explanation and presented evidence that he followed guidance from Wells Fargo’s “Banker Connection” service and complied with a Wells Fargo policy concerning accounts for minors.

The court found enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to question Wells Fargo’s explanation. That evidence included the timing between Lomboy’s medical leaves and the investigation, the sudden negative performance reviews after years of positive reviews, and alleged weaknesses in the investigation, including the investigator’s failure to preserve security footage and interview identified witnesses. The court also noted a factual dispute about whether the investigator and other Wells Fargo employees knew about Lomboy’s disability. The court denied summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claim.

Retaliation

Lomboy asserted retaliation claims under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and FEHA. He alleged that Wells Fargo retaliated against him for taking disability-related leaves, including protected CFRA and FMLA leave.

The court found that Wells Fargo had not met its burden for summary judgment. Wells Fargo did not dispute that Lomboy took protected CFRA/FMLA leave in 2023. Because the evidence created a triable dispute about whether Wells Fargo’s stated business reason was a pretext for firing Lomboy because he took protected leave, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims.

Failure to Accommodate and Interactive Process

Lomboy alleged that Wells Fargo failed to reasonably accommodate his disability and failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to determine effective accommodations. He relied in part on evidence that he requested leave from April 2022 through mid-June 2022 but was told he needed to return in May or his position would be posted for other candidates.

The court found a triable issue about whether the additional leave could have been a reasonable accommodation, even if it was not protected by the CFRA or FMLA. The court also found a triable issue about whether Gentry failed to coordinate additional accommodations and whether Wells Fargo failed to begin or adequately continue the interactive process. The court therefore denied summary judgment on both claims.

CFRA/FMLA Interference

Lomboy alleged that Wells Fargo discouraged him from using CFRA and FMLA leave. Wells Fargo argued that it granted the two leaves Lomboy requested. The court explained, however, that interference can include discouraging an employee from using protected leave, not merely refusing to authorize leave.

Lomboy presented evidence that Wells Fargo threatened to replace him while he was on leave and gave him negative performance evaluations after he returned. The court concluded that a jury could find this conduct discouraged Lomboy from exercising his leave rights and denied summary judgment on the interference claim.

Disability Harassment

Lomboy identified four possible bases for his disability-harassment claim: Gentry’s alleged threat to replace him during leave, criticism after his return, pressure to transfer to a smaller branch, and alleged false accusations of fraud related to his termination. Wells Fargo argued that the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and that Lomboy acknowledged no one made derogatory or inappropriate comments about his disabilities.

The court recognized that the examples involved personnel-management actions such as hiring, firing, transfers, and performance reviews. It nevertheless found a triable issue about whether the pattern of official actions showed a widespread pattern of bias that created a hostile or offensive work environment. The court denied summary judgment on the harassment claim.

Derivative Claims

Wells Fargo argued that Lomboy’s claims for failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; wrongful termination; and intentional infliction of emotional distress were derivative of his other claims and therefore should also be resolved in Wells Fargo’s favor. Because the court denied summary judgment on the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims, and Wells Fargo offered no alternative grounds for summary judgment on these three claims, the court denied summary judgment on them as well.

Punitive Damages

Lomboy sought punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294. Wells Fargo argued that the alleged conduct did not amount to malice or oppression and that the employees involved were not officers, directors, or managing agents whose conduct could support corporate liability.

The court held that it could not decide as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression. It also could not determine as a matter of law that Gentry and Michael Hitchcock were not managing agents. Evidence showed that they oversaw numerous employees and branches and exercised broad authority over personnel matters, including hiring, discipline, and termination. The court denied summary judgment on punitive damages.

UCL Claim

Wells Fargo argued that Lomboy lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the UCL because he was a former employee and was not seeking restitution. Lomboy did not dispute that he was not seeking restitution, and the court found no reference to restitution in the pleadings.

The court concluded that Lomboy lacked standing for the injunctive relief apparently sought because he did not show a realistic threat that the alleged violation would happen to him again. The court denied Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment as to the UCL claim but dismissed the UCL claim without prejudice.

Sealing Motion and Other Matters

Lomboy moved for the court to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The court denied that motion because Wells Fargo did not file the required declaration or response supporting continued sealing. The court directed Lomboy to file unredacted versions of the exhibits supporting his opposition on the public docket within seven days of the order.

The parties’ requests for judicial notice were denied as moot because the court did not rely on the attached documents. The court also stated that separate evidentiary objections filed by Wells Fargo in its reply were improper under the local rules.

Disposition

The court denied Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed Lomboy’s UCL claim without prejudice, and denied Lomboy’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The court stated that its summary-judgment rulings reflected the demanding standard for resolving employment cases at that stage and did not express a view about whether a jury would ultimately find Lomboy’s case persuasive. The court also set a case-management conference for October 16, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.