Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Daniel Wong, representing himself, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. over the end of his employment. He asserted claims for wrongful termination, age and citizenship-status discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Wells Fargo had hired Wong in January 2016 as an analytic consultant. In 2017, Wong applied for a higher-level analytic consultant position but was not selected for a screening interview. Recruiter Melissa Henry stated that she selected four applicants whose materials showed more regulatory-risk experience and that she did not know the applicants’ ages. A younger candidate was hired.

Wong also learned that Wells Fargo hired Sujit Nimbalker, an H-1B visa holder, for another analytic consultant position. Wong did not apply for that position. Separately, Wong complained to manager Sean Stone that his supervisor, Prabalika Goswami, treated him unfairly and isolated him. Wells Fargo later eliminated 17 positions as part of a reorganization. Wong received the lowest overall ratings among four team members considered for three continuing positions, and his position was eliminated. His employment ended after he did not find another position within 60 days.

Request for More Discovery

Wong argued that Wells Fargo had not produced documents he needed to oppose summary judgment. The court treated this as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a court to delay or deny summary judgment when a party shows through a declaration that additional discovery is needed to present essential facts.

The court denied the request. It found that Wong did not explain his delay in serving discovery, did not show that he had diligently pursued discovery, and did not identify specific facts that the requested documents would reveal or explain why those facts would defeat summary judgment. The court also found that parts of the requested discovery, particularly the proposed evidence supporting defamation, were speculative.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify evidence supporting a genuine dispute on facts that matter to the claims.

Age Discrimination

The court granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim. Wong argued that Wells Fargo’s selection of a younger candidate for the higher-level analytic consultant position was discriminatory. The court stated that age-discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act require evidence supporting, among other things, that the employer treated the plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated younger employee.

Although the court found that Wong raised a factual issue about whether Wells Fargo’s stated qualifications rationale was a pretext, it held that he failed to show that recruiter Melissa Henry knew his age when she selected applicants for screening interviews. Wong did not dispute Henry’s testimony on that point and did not identify specific discovery that would show otherwise. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim.

Citizenship-Status Discrimination

The court granted summary judgment on Wong’s citizenship-status discrimination claim. Wong based the claim on Wells Fargo’s hiring of Nimbalker, an H-1B visa holder, and clarified that he was relying on a federal regulation concerning the displacement of U.S. workers by H-1B workers. The court expressed doubt that the regulation applied or provided Wong with a discrimination cause of action.

The court nevertheless ruled that, even assuming the regulation applied, Wong had not shown that he suffered an adverse action. Wong conceded that he did not know about or apply for the position filled by Nimbalker. The court concluded that he therefore had not raised a genuine factual dispute supporting this claim.

Retaliation

The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim. A retaliation claim requires evidence that the plaintiff engaged in legally protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and has a causal connection between the two.

Wong testified in his deposition that he did not tell Stone that he believed Goswami treated him differently because of age or citizenship, and did not tell Stone that Goswami had violated the law. The court held that this testimony did not show protected activity. Wong later submitted a declaration describing the conversation as a complaint about discriminatory treatment and harassment, but the court found that declaration vague and contradictory to his deposition testimony. Because Wong did not explain or resolve the contradiction, the court disregarded the declaration and found no genuine factual dispute about protected activity.

Defamation

The court granted summary judgment on the defamation claim. Wong believed that Goswami may have made negative remarks that affected his chances of obtaining an operational consultant position, but he testified that he did not know whether Goswami made any remarks or what those remarks were. The court found that Wong had not identified evidence that Goswami made a false and harmful statement about him. His request for additional discovery did not provide a concrete basis for finding such evidence.

Wrongful Termination and Emotional Distress

The court granted summary judgment on the wrongful-termination and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It agreed with Wells Fargo that these claims were based on Wong’s discrimination and retaliation theories. Because Wong failed to establish prima facie cases—initial evidentiary showings—of discrimination and retaliation, the court held that the derivative claims also failed.

Disposition

The court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. It denied as moot Wong’s motion for a continuance of case-related dates and directed the clerk to enter judgment for Wells Fargo. The order stated that it terminated Docket Numbers 42 and 45.