Shaikh v. National Bank of Pakistan

Background

Zubair Shaikh sued his former employer, the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), under the Bank Secrecy Act’s whistleblower-protection provision. Shaikh alleged that NBP terminated him because he reported a possible sanctions-law violation to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). This was the only claim in the case. Shaikh represented himself, although counsel assisted him with depositions during discovery.

NBP’s New York branch closed its PakRemit Department effective March 31, 2016. NBP said Shaikh’s role in that department was eliminated and that it considered moving him into the Payments and Receipts Department. NBP’s evidence also showed workplace conflicts involving Shaikh, including an April 6, 2016 incident in which he yelled during a workplace conversation. NBP officials testified that they decided on or before April 19, 2016 to terminate Shaikh after the PakRemit wind-down period ended. An April 19 memorandum stated that NBP no longer needed Shaikh’s services after ending the PakRemit product and referred to his behavior toward staff.

On May 2, 2016, Shaikh emailed OFAC about a March 16 transaction involving an $8,500 payment routed through NBP’s New York branch. He believed NBP should have informed Deutsche Bank about the transaction’s connection with Iran. Later that day, NBP terminated Shaikh and gave him a severance letter stating that his position had become redundant after the PakRemit product ended.

Legal standard and claim

The court applied the summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Shaikh but explained that speculation and unsupported assertions cannot create a factual dispute for trial.

The Bank Secrecy Act protects an employee of a financial institution from discharge or other employment discrimination because the employee provides information about possible violations of specified laws to the Treasury Secretary, the Attorney General, or a federal supervisory agency. The parties agreed that Shaikh worked for a financial institution, was discharged, and that his May 2 email to OFAC was protected activity. The disputed issue was whether NBP terminated Shaikh because of that email.

The court explained that the protected report did not have to be the only cause of the termination and that causation could be shown through circumstantial evidence. However, the court also stated that when an adverse employment action was already underway before the protected activity, the timing alone generally does not support an inference that the protected activity caused the action.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that NBP had decided to terminate Shaikh before his May 2 report. It relied on testimony from NBP officials, the April 19 termination memorandum, the memorandum’s contents and metadata, and evidence that NBP planned to end Shaikh’s employment after the PakRemit wind-down period. Shaikh speculated that the memorandum might have been backdated but provided no evidence supporting that assertion.

The court also found no evidence that anyone at NBP knew about Shaikh’s email to OFAC before terminating him. Shaikh argued that an NBP official might have accessed his email, but the court treated that possibility as speculation rather than evidence that anyone actually knew about the report. The court therefore concluded that the same-day timing of the report and termination did not create a genuine factual dispute.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted NBP’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case. The ruling decided the Bank Secrecy Act claim based on the absence of evidence connecting Shaikh’s OFAC report to NBP’s termination decision; it did not decide whether Shaikh was a good or bad employee, whether NBP’s stated reasons were its true reasons, or whether NBP acted because of Shaikh’s internal compliance complaints.