Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Stella Thomas sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging racial and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wrongful termination, and unpaid overtime. The opinion notes that Thomas appeared without a lawyer. Thomas held several positions at Wells Fargo over nearly six years, including Consumer Loan Underwriter I, Credit Analyst I, and Credit Analyst II. The opinion also notes that Thomas appeared to have abandoned an unequal-pay claim under the Equal Pay Act.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the discrimination and retaliation claims, the court considered whether Thomas had evidence of intentional discrimination or retaliation, including evidence under the burden-shifting framework used when direct evidence is unavailable.

Claims from the Consumer Loan Underwriter I position

Thomas alleged that Wells Fargo failed to credit her with one point for a loan she handled in August 2017. The number of points affected monthly bonuses, but Thomas had 73 points, and both 73 and 74 points qualified for the same 10-percent bonus. The court found that the failure to credit the point was, at most, her supervisor’s admitted mistake, which the supervisor tried unsuccessfully to correct. The court also found that Thomas had not shown any financial harm or other adverse employment action from the missing point. It granted summary judgment on this discrimination claim.

Claims from the Small Business Administration team

Thomas alleged that Wells Fargo discriminated against her in assigning loan files, denying her attendance at Credit School, denying her a bonus, and failing to promote her. She also alleged that the failure to promote her was retaliation for complaints she made about discrimination.

The court found that Thomas had no evidence that another Credit Analyst I was allowed to attend Credit School or received a bonus. It accepted the evidence that no one could attend Credit School because the team was short-staffed and that Credit Analyst I was not a bonus-eligible position. The court also found that the employees Thomas identified as comparisons were not similarly situated in the relevant respects.

Regarding the promotion, Thomas identified a white male who had been promoted before her, but her own evidence showed that he had been a Credit Analyst for 18 months longer than she had. The court found that this person was not a proper comparison. It also rejected the retaliation claim because Thomas relied mainly on the timing of the promotion decision, while the evidence showed that Wells Fargo generally promoted people after at least 12 months in the new position and Thomas had been in the role for nine months. The court granted summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims arising from this position.

Claims from the Middle Market Banking group

Thomas alleged that Wells Fargo discriminated against her by not promoting her from Credit Analyst II to Credit Analyst III while hiring a white male for that position. The court found that the new hire had experience in the same role at another bank and that Thomas did not know the qualifications of several other employees she identified as comparisons. The evidence also showed that some possible comparisons had several years of experience as Credit Analyst IIs or had different supervisors. The court concluded that Thomas had not provided evidence from which a jury could infer discrimination.

Thomas also alleged that Wells Fargo retaliated against her by terminating her employment. Before she requested the promotion, Wells Fargo received a complaint from Thomas’s former boyfriend alleging that she had transferred money from his account without permission. Wells Fargo investigated, and Thomas acknowledged to investigators that she had not had permission for some transfers. Wells Fargo decided to terminate her employment and notified her in September 2019. The court found no evidence undermining Wells Fargo’s stated reason for the termination or showing that it was discriminatory or retaliatory. It granted summary judgment on these claims.

Overtime claim

Thomas alleged that Wells Fargo failed to pay her for overtime hours. The court found that she offered no evidence that she had worked overtime for which she was not paid. The only evidence showed that she had complained that her supervisor would not allow her to work overtime, not that she had worked unpaid overtime. The court granted Wells Fargo’s motion on this claim.

Disposition

The court’s order states: “Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.” It further ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion states that the case was dismissed.