$2.5 million to two bank employees for wrongful termination, discrimination. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Nimet Behar, a 49-year-old woman at the time of the incident, worked for defendant bank for four years, from November 23, 2005 through September 16, 2009, as a priority banking manager. 

  Clorinda Greek, a 63-year-old woman at the time of the incident, worked for defendant bank for 13 years, from June 24, 1996 through September 16, 2009, as a priority banking associate. 

  In mid-July of 2009, plaintiff Behar told the bank branch manager that her immediate supervisor was falsifying numbers in order to be eligible for a larger percentage of a bonus pool.  Plaintiff's branch manager agreed to meet with Behar, then at the last minute told Behar that the supervisor would also be at the meeting.  The supervisor was very angry at the falsification accusation.  After that, her attitude toward Behar changed, and she became very nitpicky and demanding. 

  In September of 2009, defendants terminated Behar and Greek,  stating that they violated company policy by allegedly investing in a bank customer’s business, violating Union Bank's policy against conflicts of interest.  The incident in question had happened more than two years before Behar and Greek were fired.  Additionally, management had been aware of the investment at issue for at least two years.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That the defendant bank's branch manager as well as the immediate supervisor of plaintiffs engaged in discriminatory  behavior toward plaintiffs. The branch manager made it clear that he preferred to work with Persian employees (Ms. Greek was born in Nicaragua and Ms. Behar was born and raised in Cyprus). That their direct supervisor said, “I like training young people” and their branch manager said, “I want younger sales people, they are hungry.”

  That at all times, plaintiffs performed their duties in an exemplary manner and were never written up or otherwise disciplined.

  That defendants discriminated, harassed and retaliated against them based on their ages, national origins and ancestries, wrongfully terminated them in violation of public policy and caused the plaintiffs to engage in self-defamation (by forcing plaintiffs to repeat the false pretense given for their termination to other potential employers), all of which resulted in harm to plaintiffs.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants deny all of plaintiffs’ allegations and damages. Defendants deny that any action on their behalf was taken illegally, and likewise deny that plaintiffs suffered the damages.