Alijaj v. Wells Fargo

Background

Skender Alijaj brought an employment lawsuit against Wells Fargo alleging discrimination based on national origin and religion, retaliation, and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He also appeared to allege retaliation for whistleblowing, although he did not identify the statutes supporting those claims. Alijaj represented himself.

Alijaj alleged that he experienced hostile and unethical treatment at work, received negative performance reviews and warnings, complained about the treatment and performance reviews, and was terminated on November 9, 2015. He believed the termination was retaliation for challenging what he described as ethical violations and negative statements in a performance review.

In an earlier order, the court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment on Alijaj’s Title VII and age-discrimination claims. The court did not dismiss the entire case because Wells Fargo’s motion had not addressed the potential whistleblower claims. The court allowed Wells Fargo to file a later motion addressing those claims.

Whistleblower Claims

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the remaining potential whistleblower claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Wells Fargo also moved in the alternative for summary judgment, but the court did not need to address that alternative request because it dismissed the claims based on the pleadings.

The court considered possible claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and New York Labor Law § 740.

For a Sarbanes-Oxley claim, the court held that Alijaj had not alleged that he first filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or otherwise exhausted the required administrative process. The court also held that his allegations did not show that he reported conduct involving the kinds of fraud or securities-law violations covered by that statute. The court therefore dismissed any potential Sarbanes-Oxley claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

For a Consumer Financial Protection Act claim, the court held that Alijaj had not alleged that he exhausted the required administrative remedies. The court noted that it was unsettled whether failure to exhaust under that statute is a jurisdictional defect or instead requires dismissal for failure to state a claim. Regardless, the court dismissed any potential Consumer Financial Protection Act claim.

For a Dodd-Frank claim, the court explained that the statute protects a whistleblower who provides information to the Securities and Exchange Commission or engages in other specified protected conduct. The court held that Alijaj had not alleged that he contacted the Commission, had a legal duty to disclose information, or provided information within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The court dismissed any potential Dodd-Frank claim for failure to state a claim.

The court also dismissed any potential New York Labor Law whistleblower claim because, after dismissing the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Motion for Reconsideration

Alijaj moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 to reconsider the earlier order granting Wells Fargo summary judgment on the Title VII and age-discrimination claims. The court denied the motion. It held that Rule 60(b) applies only to final orders and judgments, while the earlier order was not final because potential whistleblower claims remained unresolved. The court also held that Local Civil Rule 6.3 required a reconsideration motion to be served within 14 days, but Alijaj filed his motion more than one year after the earlier order.

Disposition

The court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss all remaining claims and denied Alijaj’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the open motions and close the case.