Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan, SDNY Summary Judgment Order

8/11/2019 Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan, SDNY Summary Judgment Order

1/36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------- --------- ------ ----x

JENNIFER SHARKEY

Pla i f f

10 Civ. 3824

- aga in s t -

ORDER

J .P . MORGAN

ADAM GREEN

t h e i r of f i

capac i t i e s

CHASE

& CO. JOE

KENNEY

and

LESLIE

LASSITER

in

a l and

i nd iv idua l

Defendants.

------x

A P P EA

RAN

C E

S:

Atto for Pla in t i f f

THOMPSON

WIGDOR & GILLY LLP

85

Fi f th Avenue

New

York

NY 10003

By:

Lawrence M. Pearson

Esq.

Attorne

for

Defendants

ARNOLD & PORTER

LLP

399 Park Avenue

New York NY 10022

By: Michael D.

Schi s se l

Esq.

1

Case 1:10-cv-03824-RWS Document 81 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 36


2/36

Sweet D.J .

Defendants

J.P.

Morgan

Chase

&

Co.

( JPMC )

and

Joe

Kenney ( Kenney ),

Adam

Green ( Green ) and Les l i e Las s i t e r

( Lass i t e r ) ( co l lec t ive ly , the Defendants )

have

moved fo r

summary judgment,

pursuant

to

Fed. R e iv .

P

56,

on

remaining cla im

of Pl a i n t i f f Jenn i fe r Sharkey ( S rkey

or

the

a in t i f f )

a l leged

in the Amended Complaint .

For

the

reasons

se t fo r th below, Defendants ' motion

i s

gran ted .

Prior

Proceedings

On October

22,

2009, Sharkey f i l e d a t imely complaint

wi th

the

Occupat iona l Safe ty and Heal th Adminis t ra t ion o f

the

U.S.

Department o f

Labor

("OSHA")

a l leg ing v io la t ions of the

Sarbanes-Oxl

Act of 2002,

18

U.S.C. 1514A

( Sarbanes-Oxley

or SOX ).

On

or about Apri l

12,

2010, OSH

i ssued

i t s

f indings

and

pre l iminary

order

dismiss ing her complain t . ee

OSH Order

(Apr.

12, 2010) (Ex. to the Decla ra t ion of Michael

D

Schisse l , ed

August 12,

2013 ( Schissel Decl . ) ) ("OSHA

2



3/36

Orderft). Sharkey f i l e d

her

compla int wi th t h i s cour t on

May

10,

2010,

a l l ing the

same cla ims

under

SOX.

On June

1, the Defendants moved to d i

ss the

complain t . The Opinion and Order dated January

14,

2011 of t h i s

cour t

( the January 14

ft

held t ha t Shar

y

engaged in

a

pro tec t

a c t i v i t y under SOX

when

repor t ing

with

respec t

to a

rd

par ty , the

Su JPMC Cl ien t ( Cl ient

Aft

or

Suspect

Cl ien t

ft

) ,

but

t

the

il

1 a c t i

ty

repo

was

not

adequately a l leged the

o r ig in a l

complain t . ha

2011

W

135026, a t

*4

8 .

Shar y was

g

l eave to

rep lead

her

SOX

cla ims,

but

P l a i n t i f f ' s

s t a t e

law

ch

of

con t rac t

cla im

was

smissed with

pre j

ceo Sharkey f i l e d her

Amended Complaint

("AC

ft

)

on

February 14, 2011.

AC contains

a s

Ie cla im for an a l l

v io la t ion o f

whis t l

lower prov i s ion of

SOX,

namely t ha t

Pl a i n t i f f

blew

the whis t le on Client

A,

fo r which JPMC

r e t a l i a t e d

by

t e rmina t ing Pia

iff s

oyment. The

AC

inc

s

twe

paragraphs

a l l eg ing

t h a t

Shar

y

bel i eved Client

A was

v i ing one or more o f

the

enumerated SOX s t a tu t e s in

addi t ion

to money

laundering

AC ] ] 1,

17,

20, 26

7,

36-38, 43

44, 52, 57),

and

t h i r t y paragraphs and subparagraphs ou t l in ing

3



4/36

the

purpor ted

f ac tua l bas i s

t ha t

gave

r i s e

to t h a t b e l i e f AC

25.

5.g,

27. 7 .q . ,

2 8 3 7 ) .

On ruary

3, 2011, Defendants

f i l ed motion

to

dismiss

the AC on the grounds t ha t (1) t h i s cour t lacks

j u r i s

c t ion

because

the newly

pled

a l l ega t ions

in

the AC were

not conta ined in Sharkey s OSHA

complain t ,

(2) while the AC

conta ins

add i t iona l

c tua l

a l l ega t ions regard ing

the

purpor ted

suspi

ous ac t i v i t

s

of

JPMC's

c l i en t ,

t

f a i l s

to

s t a t e

with

any l eve l of i c i t y what t i s she a l l eged ly

repor ted

to

JPMC supe

sors t ha t

const

uted whis t leb lowing,

(3) t

AC

does not meet the eading requirements

of Ashcrof t v. Iqbal

556 U.S. 662, 129

S.Ct.

1937, 173 L.

.2d 868 (2009) and Bel l

At lan t i c Corp. v .

Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167

L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) because Sharkey st ll does

not

i de n t i fy which

s t a tu t e

enumerated

sox

she be l i eves

JPMC's

c l i e n t v io l a t

and

(4)

the

AC

f a i l s

to

a l l ege

t ha t

Defendants knew

or should

have

known

t ha t

she

engaged in

pro t ec t ed a c t i v i t y because

the

AC

f a i l s to sc lose

which

purpor t

communicat ions

or d isc losu res

cons t i tu ted her a l l eged whis t leb lowing.

On

August 19, 2011,

Defendants '

motion to

di ss was

ied ( August

19

Opinion ) .

See

Sharkey

v .

JP

Morgan 805 F. Supp. 2d 45

(S.D.N.Y.

2011) .

4



5/36

n

June 14,

2013, Defendants

submit ted

a

l e t t e r

( the

June

14

Le t t e r

U

)

moving

to

s t r i ke the tes t imony of


exper t , Anne Marchet t i ( Marchet t i

.

This

l e t t e r was t r e a t

as a motion, and

was

rd and marked fu l ly submit ted on

September

18, 2013. By order of October 9, 2013,

Marchet t i was

ermi able to

t e s t i f y

as to

those mat te rs and t r ansac t ions

whi

as

an

accountant , might t r i g g e r

concern under

S X (so

c a l l red f lags

, but

was prec luded

from t e s t i f y i n g as to

whether P l a i n t i f f ' s

be l i e f in suspect ing Cl ien t

A

and

recommending

t e rmina t ion was reasonable , or

fu r the r bo l s te r ing


tes t imony as to i n t e rn a l mat te rs o f which

Marchet t i

no

personal

knowledge.

n

August 12, 2013,

Defendants '

submit ted the i n s t an t

motion

summary

judgment i n s t Pl a i n t i f f . This motion

was

hea

and

marked

11 submit ted

on

October 9, 2013.

acts

Knowledge

of

the

underlying

dispute in t h i s case i s

assumed descr ibed in

the August 19

p

on. The f ac t s below

are repea ted

in

p a r t

as re levant to

i n s t a n t

motions and

se t

r th in Defendants '

Sta tement

of Undisputed Mater ia l Facts

5



6/36

( Stmt . )

and

Pl a i n t i f f ' s Counter Sta tement of Undisputed

Mater ia l Fact ( Counter Stmt . ) ,

pursuant

to Local Rule

56.1.

Par t i e s

Sharkey was h i red by JPMC in November 2006.

(Counter

Stmt. ~ 1 .

From

the

spr ing

of 2008 through August 5,

2009,

Sharkey, as a Private

Wealth

Manager

in JPMC's

P va te

Wealth

Management

("PWM")

Divis ion ,

was

supe

sed

by

Lass i t e r ,

who

was

head of the PW

un

in which P l a i n t i f f worked. Lass i t e r

repor ted to

Green,

then the

head

of PWM's Northeast Region, who

in tu rn repor ted to Kenney,

then

the Chief Execut ive Off i ce r o f

PWM.

Id. ~ ~ 3-4. )

KYC

Process and Cl ien t

A

Cl ien t

A

i s

a i en t

o f JPMC engaged in

mul t ip le

businesses .

(Stmt.

7.) As a Pr iva t e Wealth Manager, one of

Pl a i n t i f f ' s r e s pons ib i l i t i e s

was,

for each

c l i en t ,

to oversee

and complete the

Know

Your Customer ( 'KYC,)l

due

d i l i gence

As

P l a i n t i f f

descr ibes ,

KYC i s

a po l i c y implemented

by banks

to conform to

a Customer

Ident i f i ca t ion Program

. . . mandated

by

the Bank

Secrecy

Act,

T i t l e I I I of the USA PATRIOT Act, and f edera l r egu la t ions to

prevent ,

i n t e r

a l i a

money launder ing and t e r r o r i s t f i n a n c ~ n g . u (AC , 44

( c i t 31

C.F.R.

103.121)

.)

6



7/36

ss

and

associ

forms.

Id.

5.)

This process

i s used,

in

par t , to i poten t i a l high

r i sk

factorsH

as

ated

with

JPM c l i en t s .

Id. 6.) The KY

process for

C l i en t A had

a l ready begun

when

i n t i f f was ass igned Cl ien t

A

in ea r ly

2009.

Id . q 9 .

Pr io r

to

a i n t i f f s involvement with Cl n t

A,

the

JPM

Risk Department had i den t i f po t e n t i a l

sk

re l a t ed

to the

c l i en t .

Id . q[q[

9-10.) In

Apr i l

2009,

Kathie

Gruszczyk ( Grszcz yk

H

) , a JPM

sk

Manager,

sent

Pla in t i f f a

memorandum summarizing

these

en t i a l

r i sks

fo r iff s

fo l low-up.

Id.

10.)

Most

of t

in format ion in t ha t

memorandum

was

co l l ec ted

by

sk

Department

P l a i n t i f f

was ever

assigned to

C l i en t

A

Id . q

9. )

P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d

tha t ,

to

her , the

most

s ign i f i can t information in the

memorandum

was the l lowing:

i en t A and h is businesses had 50 bank accounts , some

of which

had

zero ba lances ;

Cl ien t A was in

the

diamond

and

id c a l l i ng

card

bus inesses ;

Corpora te documents

for

some of Cl ien t A's businesses

were

not in

JPMC's

f i l e s ;

No records for one Cl ien t

A ent y were

found

during a

background k per formed 2007;

7



8/36

-One of Client A's businesses was

incorpora ted

in

I s r a e l ;

Client A had

reques ts to re money from

Colombia;

Client

A had not provided a l l

documentat ion

s t ed

by pr io r ban rs ;

Client

A had

involved in

inesses

tha t

went

bankrupt in mid-1990s.

Client

A

executed

t rades in an escrow

account owned

by

a law firm (the Ostrager Account ) and P l a i n t i f f was

unable to

corrobora te

Cl ient A's s ta tement

tha t

he

was

author iz

to t rade in

tha t

account ;

s ted

by

Pl a i n t i f f ;

and

Client

A i

to

provide a l l

documents

Pl a i n t i f f was unable to con rm addresses

some

Client

A

inesses

.

.

11.) Sharkey a l so t e s t i f i e d

t t

the fo l lowing add i t iona l

informat ion

cont r ibuted to

her

be l i e f regarding Client A

I t was unclear whether Client A's

businesses

were

fore ign or domestic , whi

Gruszczyk s t a t ed was a

r i sk concern ;

I t was

unc

r how Cl A's bus inesses i n t e rac ted

with each other ,

o r who owned Cl ien t

A's businesses ,

which Gruszczyk s t a t e d was

a

r i s k concern ;

The source of wealth of t pr inc ipa l s of Client A's

businesses was

unknown,

and one

owner/signer on

ce r t a in Client

A

accounts

i s a

pol i ca l l y expos

person,

which

Gruszczyk

s t a t ed

was

a

r i s k

concern ;

-Although Client was

purpor tedly

i n t e res t ed in

cooperat ing with Shar y, Pl a i n t i f f mainta ins tha t

a r

f i r s t or second time

s

ke with him,

was unable to get to the phone, wouldn ' t re turn

[her] phone

ca l l s

[ JPMC] couldn ' t

ge t

the

informat ion

to f u l f i l l the

KY

i rements;

8



9/36

-As Gruszc

k acknowledged,

JPM

had caught

Cl ien t

A

in

1

s ,

and he was

giv ing

Sharkey the run around;

-As Gruszczyk

acknowledged,

Cl ien t

A had

judgments / l i ens f i l e d

aga ins t

him fo r over

$33,000,000,

and

banks

t h a t

worked

with

Cl

A

aimed

over $50,000,000 in

losses when a bus iness

run

by Cl i en t

A was fo rced

in to bankruptcy;

- JPM

sk O ff i ce r Jan ice Barnes noted t ha t

Merr i l l

Lynch a l l eg ed C l i en t A's bus iness engaged

sys temat ic

manipu la t ion o f its books and

s u b s t an t i a l

f raud , producing

an

account of

d isappear ing as s e t s t h a t read[] l i k e

a

mystery ;

and

- Cl ien t A was in the diamond/gem bus

s s ,

reques ted

wire

t r an s f e r s

from

Colomb

fo r

o f emeralds .

(Counter

Stmt.

11,

44,

45.)

The Ostrager Account

In t h e course of the KY process ,

P l a i n t i f f

l earned

t h a t Cl i en t A had been execut ing t s in

an

escrow account ,

the

Ost rager Account , a t JPMC was owned

by

a law f i rm ( the

Ostrager Firm ) .

Id . 12-13. ) T Ost

r Firm

represen ted

and still r ep re s en t s

A

in mul t ip le

l i t i g a t i o n s concerning

in

o f

pa ten t s owned by

Cl ien t

A.

Id .

12. )

Ost

Firm

depos i t ed

proceeds

from those l i t i g a t i o n s in to

the

escrow account , and then

au th o r i zed Cl i en t A

to

en te r

t rades with

funds

from the

accounts . When

i

brought

Cl i en t

A's t r ad ing

in t h a t

9



10/36

account to L as s i t e r ' s a t t en t ion , Lass i t e r t o ld P l a i n t i f f

to

f ind out

.

.

what were the reasons

for

it and to

make

sure

we

had

appropr ia te

documentat ion . Id . 13.)

P l a i n t i f f could not

l oca t e

a

wri t ten au thor iza t ion , but

she

asked

Cl ien t A

i f

he

was

author ized to t rade in

the

account. Id . 14.) Clien t

A

explained

to P l a i n t i f f

t ha t the funds

in

the escrow

account were

proceeds from paten t l i t i g a t i o n s ,

and

t ha t the Ost rager Firm had

author ized him to

t rade in

the account .

Id .

P l a i n t i f f

at tempted to contac t

the

Ostrager Firm to conf i rm

such

author iza t ion .

Id . 15. ) She

then

was t o ld

to

contact a

spec i f i c ind iv idual a t

the

f i rm, whom

she

did not reach desp i t e

mul t ip le messages.

Id . 15 . )

Afte r P l a i n t i f f

was

te rmina ted , JPM confirmed with

the

Ostrager Firm t ha t Cl ien t

A

was author ized

to

t r ade

in

the

escrow account , and

JPM

employees

located

the wri t t en

au thor i za t i on in JPMC's f i l e s t ha t

P l a i n t i f f contended

she could

not

f ind . Id . 25-26.)

In

addi t ion , P l a i n t i f f contends t ha t she

asked Clien t

A

to provide ce r t a in corpora te documenta t ion and

information

requi red

by

the

KY process ,

and t ha t

Clien t A

produced

some,

but not a l l , of t ha t

information.

Id .

20.)

P l a i n t i f f does

1



11/36

not

i d en t i f y

what

in fo rmat ion

Client

A had not

produced,

but

Conce

JPM

has

s ince obta ined KY in fo rmat ion from i en t A

Id.

n

25.

r t ed Concerns

and Writ ten

Recommendations

Based on the above in fo rmat ion

regarding Client

A,

Pl a i n t i f f

c la ims

she

became concerned t ha t Cl ien t

A was

poss ib ly

engaging

in

i l l e g a l

a c t iv i t y ,

and

voiced

those

concerns

to

her

superv i so r

Lass

e r

and

to

Gruszczyk

in the JPM sk

Department .

Id. n

16.

P l a i n t i f f a l so began to

suggest

to

Lass i t e r

t ha t

the PW

Department

a t

JPM

e x i t

i t s

r e l a t i o n s h ip

with

Client A

Id . ) When Las s i t e r

asked P l a i n t i f f

fo r the

reasons , she responded

pr imar i ly

by saying t h a t

Cl ien t

A was in

the gem

business , he

was

I s r a e l i , he

had not provided a l l

KY

informat ion, he had

mult ip le

bank accounts and he was

t r ad ing in

the Os t rager Firm account . Id. n 16. Las s i t e r urged

Pl a i n t i f f to

obta in

the

miss ing KY

in fo rmat ion and conf i rmat ion

from the

Ostrager

f i rm,

and t o ld

her t ha t more format ion

was

necessary ,

given t ha t the

other

fac t s ,

without

fu r the r

s p ec i f i c s ,

were i n su f f i c i e n t to e x i t a

c l i en t .

Id.

n

17 .

Lass i t e r and the Risk Department urged

P l a i n t i f f a t various

po in t s

to

complete

her

KYCs,

including

the

ones for Cl ient A

11



12/36

Id . ]I

18.)

Independent ly

of Cl i en t A

s s i t e r

maint t h a t

P l a i n t i f f was of the

s lowes t

under

r

superv i s ion to

complete

r

KYC forms in t imely manner. Id .

Eventual ly ,

Lass i t e r asked P l a i n t i f f

to put

i n w r i t

by the end of

Y

2009 any concerns

she

had about

Cl i en t A

and

her recommended

course

o f

ac t ion .

Id . 19.) On

Ju ly

24,

2009,

P l a i n t i f f sen t

an

email to

Gruszczyk, Las s i t e r

and t h ree

others

(excluding

Green and Kenney), s t a t

t h a t

the

i n format ion

c o l l e c t e d fe uncomfo

e regard ing

[Cl ient

] ly

r e l a t i o n s

and the na tu re of i t s bus inesses as well as

i t s

r e l a t ed

e n t i t i e s , and

she had not r ece iv ed a l l the

documenta t ion and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to s a t i s our s t an d a rd

Know

Your Cl i en t requ i rements .

I d . ~ 2 0 . )

P l a i n t i f f

recommended

t h a t we

discuss

a

s imple

way

to

de tach t

r e la t ionsh ip from

t

PW metro

bus iness .

Id . )

P l a i n t i f f did

not

recommend

a l l l i n e s of bus iness a t JPMC sever t r

r e l a t i o n s h i p s with Cl i en t A but i n s t

s t a t ed :

I want

to

be

mindful

of the fac t

other

LOB's [ l ines

of

bus ss] with in

t f i rm

have

r e la t ionsh ips with

t h i s c l i e n t and /or

ts r e l a t

e n t i t i e s

may

wish

to r e t a i n some or a l l of t h e i r bus

s s .

Id . P l a i n t i f f

d not

mention

any

i l l e g a l

conduct o r s p ec i f i c

12



13/36

unlawful a c t i v i t y

which suspec ted Cl ien t A to be

engaged.

Id .)

r reviewing Sharkey s

e-mai l , Las s i t e r and

Gruszczyk

discussed it with P l a i n t i f f . 21) , and Lass i t e r

agreed to t e rmina te JPMC s r e l a t i o n s h ip with

Cl ien t

A in

re l i ance

on P l a i n t i s

rep re sen ta t ion

t h a t

Cl ien t

A had

not

provided a l l

KY

documenta t ion t h a t P l a i n t i f f

cla imed she had

reques ted . Id .)

Gruszczyk

purpor ted ly

r

s en t

P l a i n t i f f

sample l e t t e r s used

by

JPMC to e x i t c l i e n t re ionsh

s .

Id.

22.)

After

JPM t e rmin a t P l a i n t i f f , JPM

l ea rned

t h a t

P l a i n t i f f had not informed Cl i en t A

t h a t KY

documents

were

still

outs tanding.

Id. 24. ) Cl A was

su rp r i sed

to

lea rn

t h a t

JPM bel Cl i en t A still

owed

KY documents to the

bank. .

Promptly a f t e r l e a rn i n g t h a t documenta t ion was

missing, Cl A

ded

a l l

in fo rmat ion necessary

to

comp

the

KY process .

Id. 25. ) Given

t the documenta t ion

i s s u es

noted by P i n t i f f in her

Ju ly emai l had

reso lved ,

Lass i t e r reversed the dec i s ion to

e x i t

the i e n t , and Cl i en t A

remains a

c l i e n t o f

JPMC today. Id. 27. ) No

e x i t

l e t t e r s

were

ever sen t

t o C l i en t A, and documents produced

by

Defendants

13



14/36

August

2013

o u t l i n e p lans by

PW management

to expand t

re

ionsh ip .

(Counter

Stmt.

7.)

a i n t i f f ' s Per rmance Concerns

Pr iva te

Wealth

Managers

are

expec ted to unders t and

JPMC's a r r ay

o f

f i n a n c i a l

produc ts , genera te new bus iness

JPMC

and

complete the KYC process fo r new

and

s t ing

c l

s .

(Stmt.

5-6 . )

Less

t han

a

year

a f t e r

P l a i n t i f f

became

a

Wealth

r , her supe

so r s began no t ing i s s u e s with

her r formance .

.

28.) For

example ,

Green was concerned

about

a i n t i f f ' s i n s u f f i c i e n t knowledge and

unders t and ing o f

va

JPMC

f inanc 1 produc ts ,

as

wel l as the

in

1 natu re

of her i n t e r a c t i o n s with c l i e n t s .

Id.

During

t 2009 mid-

year t a l e n t

review o f

the

hundreds

of employees wi th in

PWM

Mr.

Green p laced P l a i n t i f f on a watch list

cons i s t i ng

a list

i n g . Id. 30.) Addi t iona l ly ,

dur i t a l e n t

ew, Green r e c a l l e d being concerned about

P l a i n t i f f ' s con t inued

i l u r e ,

o f e who were s t

To demonst rate a s u f f i c i e n t

sp

o f our i nves tmen t s

product se t o r s k i l l

to

communicate t h a t wel l with

c l i e n t s and spec t s . She had shown s loppy work.

She con t inued

to ,

in the case o f

some c l i e n t

r e l a t ionsh ips , approach[]

them

in an over ly

cas u a l

way, which we thought r esu l i n

t hose

re t i o n s h i p s

4



15/36

lop ing l e s s

ck ly o r

wel l than

we

hoped.

ex e rc i s ed j u d g men t .

[ in] her se

an inv i tee to a

i e n t

even t .

Id .

f[

28.

t oo

was

concerned about

iff s i n v i t a t i o n

o f

a non-JPMC mortgage broker to a

major

JPM

hos ted

c l i e n t

event .

Id . br ing ing a mortgage broker to the even t ,

Kenney b e l i

tha t

P l a i n t i f f

exerc i sed poor

judgment , given

t h a t

JPM i s ,

Ai

t h e

mort bus iness , and br ing ing

somebody

in

t h a t s t between us

our

c l i e n t s

i s

somethi t ha t

d o e s n t

make

sense a t

a l l , because we

do

mortgages, w e re

one

of

t h e

bes t

out

t he re a t

doing

it, and

in ing

in a mortgage broker to then e i t h e r go

shop

it

o r

j u s t

s t ep between, t ng

to

get paid

fo r us doing bus iness with our normal c l i e n t s

d o e s n t

make any sense whatsoever .

Id . While

Green

and Kenney were prepared

to

consi P l a i n t i s

te nat ion dur ing

mid-year

t a l e n t

rev iew,

Las s i t e r

was

o f more t ime to eva lua te .

She was g en e ra l l y more

suppor t ive and more opt imis t i c

about

[ P l a i n t i f f s ]

p o ten t i a l

than

U

Green

or

Kenney.

Id . f[

31.)

Las s i t e r

was,

though,

t ha t

P l a i n t i f f s

revenue genera t ion over-es t imated her e f f o r t s in

l op ing

15



16/36

business , and by

the

lack

of

conf idence P la in t i f f ' s

l low co

workers had

in her

e f

s , espec i a l l y regard ing Shar

y ' s

ab i l i t y

to

fol low-up with

i en t s .

28.) Moreover,

Lass i t e r found t ha t a in t i f f fa i l ed to

rform adequate KY

l igence

possessed

a

casual a t t i t ude

toward her

job

r e spons ib i l i t s , her

KY s

genera l , and her approach to

Cl ient

A's KY s spe f i c a l l y . Id .

P

i n t i f f

a l so was unable

to pass the Ser ies

7 exam on her

f i r s t

two

a t t empts .

.

28 .

In

l

and

May

2009,

Las s i t e r had

a t l e a s t two

meet

with

PI

i f f

to

scuss these performance i s sues .

Id . 29.)

During one of those

meet ings,

Las s i t e r asked

Pla in t i f f to work

on these

i ssues with the hope

t ha t

P l a i n t i f f

would

remedy them.

Id . ) Lass i t e r has acknowledged t h a t

key

had

developed s ign i f i can t c l i e n t r e l a t i on sh ip s , and

Green commented t ha t by

middle of 2009, key 's]

performance

versus

metr ics

exceeded

expec ta t ions .

(Counter

Stmt. 28.)

Shor t ly

a

er the

d-year

t a l en t

review, in l a t e y

2009, the

o f f i c e r

manager of

a s

f i c an t

PW c l i en t

( Manager

Tit contacted

Lass i t e r

and

complained

t ha t

she had been unable

16



17/36

to contac t i n t i f f and

P l a i n t i f f

had

not

r e tu rned

her

ca l l s ,

going

so f a r as

to

r e f e r

to

i n t i f f as a

phantom.

Stm t . [ 32.)

s s i t e r

re layed the conversa t ion

to

P l a i n t i f f

and asked

whether she had re turned

Manager T ' s ca l l s . .

[

33.

)

P l a i n t i f f

responded t ha t she had in fac t r e tu rned Manager

T's

ca l l s .

Id . )

Believing PIa

i f f ,

L a ss i t e r

ca l l ed

T, and a her second conversa t ion , L a ss i t e r aga in asked

Pla in t i f f

whether

had

spoken

Manager T. Id .

[

35. )

i n t i f f

aga

sa id

t ha t

she

had.

Id .

)

L a ss i t e r

press

Pla in t i , who then admi t ha t she had

not re turned

Manager

T ' s ca l l s ,

thereby

acknowledging

t ha t

she had l i e d to

L a ss i t e r

about the inc iden t .

2

Id .

[

36.) L a ss i t e r main ta ins

t h i s

caused

r to l o se t r u s t and conf in P l a i n t i f f , and became

a problemat ic s

ion

with an important c l , namely

Manager

T.

Id .


18/36

business , of

t

ident . (Stmt. 37.) Grande adv is

Lass i t e r t ha t ,

under

JPMC's wri t t en

rsonnel

pol icy , d i

s ty

was grounds

t e rmina t ion . Id. ~ 3 8 .

Following t h i s conversat ion , b y e -m a i l on

Y

21,

2009, Green

wrote

to Kenney, FYI, j u s t as

I was

out ,

Lesl ie

posted

m

on an

inc ident

regard ing Jenn i fe r

rkey.

I

sen t her to but

it

i s ly l i k e l y

w

te

nate her

r i g h t

away.

As

you

r e c a l l ,

she

i s

ranked yellow

and watch

list. (Counter Stmt.

41.)

Kenney responded, 0

y

sometimes it doesn ' t

t ake

people to on t h e i r

own

f ee t .

Grande then consul ted with hi s supe

sor , Lee Gatten

( Gat ten ) ,

as

wel l

as

Padi l l a

( Padi l

) ,

both

in JPMC's

Empl e

Relat ions Group, Green. This

group c o l l e c t i v e l y

deci

t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s

conduct

meri ted

t e rmina t ion . (Stmt.

41.)

During

the

conversat ions , ne i the r Cl ien t

A

nor

any

concerns

Pl a i n t i f f

had ssed

about Client

A

in the pas t were

ment

( Id .

40.)

discuss ion concerned

only

whether ,

in l i gh t of


shonesty and pas t rformance

problems, her employment

should

be t e rmina t

( Id .

41.

According

to

Lass i t e r ,


f i n a l ac t of

dishonesty

was

18



19/36

the

s t raw

t ha t

broke

the

camel s back.

That t he re

had been

i ssues before ,

and

now

she had been un t ru th fu l , and

I j u s t

d i d n t see how we could move

forward .

Id .

g

41.

On August

5,

2009, Lass i t e r informed

P l a i n t i f f of

her

terminat ion for lack

of

judgment,

JPMC's

l os s

of

confidence

in

her , and her unt ru thfulness re l a t ed to the Manager T i nc iden t .

Id .

ll

42.

Grande had

a

s imi la r

conversat ion with Pl a i n t i f f .

Id .

During

these conversat ions ,

P l a i n t i f f

did

not

mention

Client

A

or the

KYC

process , or

deny t h a t she

had

l i e d to

Lass i t e r . Id . ll

43.

OSHA Proceedings

On October 22, 2009, Pl a i n t i f f f i l e d a

Complaint

with

OSHA

On

Apri l

12, 2010, a f t e r

a

fu l l inves t iga t ion ,

including

document

product ion and witness

in te rv iew, OSHA i s sued

prel iminary f indings

and

an order d ismiss ing the

Complaint

because Complainant

did

not engage

in

p ro tec t ed a c t i v i t y under

SOX.

OSHA

Order .

The

ppl icable

Standard

9



20/36

1 Summary Judgment

Summary judgment i s

granted

only i f t he re l S no

genuine i s sue

of

mater i a l

fac t and the

moving

par ty i s

en t i t l ed

to judgment as a matte r

of

law. F R C P 56(c) ; see

Celotex

Corp.

v

Catre t t

477 U S 317,

322-23

(1986);

S S

Commc ns,

Inc. v Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329,

338

(2d Cir . 2004) . In

determining

whether a

genuine i s sue of mater i a l f ac t does

ex i s t ,

a

cour t

must

reso lve

a l l

ambigui t ies

and

draw

a l l

reasonab le

in ferences

aga ins t the moving par ty . See Matsushi ta Elec .

Indus.

Co., Ltd.

v

Zeni th

Radio Corp. , 475 U S 574, 587 (1986);

Gibbs-Al fano v Burton, 281 F.3d

12,

18 (2d Cir . 2002) .

In addi t ion , cour t s do not t r y i s sues

of fac t on

a

motion

for

summary judgment, but

ra the r , determine

whether

the

evidence presents a s u f f i c i en t disagreement t o r equ i re

submission

to a

ju ry

or

whether t i s so one-s ided t ha t one

par ty must

preva i l

as a matte r

of law.

Anderson v

Liber t y

Lobby, Inc . 477 U S 242, 251-52 (1986).

Unsupported

a l l ega t ions

do not c rea te a mater i a l i s sue

of

f ac t . Weinstock

v Columbia

Univ. , 224 F.3d 33, 4

(2d Cir .

2000) .

The mere

exis tence

of

a s c i n t i l l a

of

evidence

in

support of

the nonmoving

pa r ty ' s pos i t ion i s l ikewise i n s u f f i c i en t ; t he re must be

20



21/36

evidence on

which

the ju

could

reasonably

f ind

r

Pl a i n t i f f .

Andaya v. At las

Ai r ,

Inc . , No.

10

V

7878, 2012 WL 1871511, a t

*2 (S.O.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012) .

2.

SOX Whist leblower

Claims

On a mot summary judgment on a

SOX

whis t leb lower

r e t a l i a t cla im, the pI n t i f f bears the

i n i t i a l burden

of

making

a

prima

f ac ie

showing

of

r e t a l i a t o r y

di sc r imina t ion .

i n sky

v.

Telvent

GI

S.A. , 2013 WL

1811877

a t 6

(S.D.

N . Y May 1,

2013) . In 0

r

to

do

so, an

employee must demonst ra te t h a t

(1)

she

ged i n p ro tec t ed

a c t iv i t y ;

(2) employer

knew

t ha t s engaged

i n p ro tec t ed

a c t iv i t y ; (3)

s

su f fe red an unfavo Ie

personnel

ac t ion ; and

a c t i v i t y was a cont ing f ac to r

in the

unfavorable ac t i o n . Id.

(quoting t e l v.

Adminis tra ve

Review

Bd. ,

United S ta t e s

Dep t o f

710

F.3d 443,

447

(2d

Cir .

2013)).

I f

a p l a i n t i f f

proves

se four e lements , a

defendant may rebu t t h i s prima

e case wi th c lea r

and

convinc evidence t ha t t

d have taken

the

same

personnel

ac t ion the

absence

of the pro tec t ed

behavior .

Betchel v. cilnin ew Bd. ,

U.S.

Dep t

Labor

710

F 443, 451 (2d Cir . 2013) (c i t a t ions

omi t t ed) .

The

(4)

the

2



22/36

d e fen d an t s

burden under

Sect ion

806

i s

notab ly

more

than under

other federa l employee pro tec t ion s t a t u t e s , thereby maki

summary judgment aga ins t

p l a i n t i f f s

in Sarbanes-Oxley

s i t ion . / f d

e t a l i a t i o n cases a

more

f f i c u l t

I

Defendants Motion for ummary

Judgment

i s Granted

c t ion r

employees

o f

OX

prov ides

whis t l lower

publ i

y

t r ad ed

companies

i f ,

any o f f i c e r , employee,

subcon t rac to r ,

o r agent

discharge

[ s ] , t h rea t en [ s ] ,

[or] h aras s [es ] ,

an

employee in

t he terms

and cond i t ions

of

employment

because o f

any

l awfu l ac t

done

by the employee-( l ) to

prov ide in fo rmat ion , cause in fo rmat ion to be provided,

o r o t rwise a s s i s t in an i n v e s t i g a t i o n regard ing

any

conduct

which the employee

reasonab ly

l i ev e s

co n s t i t u t e s

a

v io l a t i o n of

any ru l e

o r r eg u l a t i o n o f

the

Secu r i t

s

and Exchange Commission,

or

any

p ro v i s io n o f r a l law r e l a t i n g to f raud i n s t

sh a reh o ld e r s , when t h e

i n format ion or

ass i s t ance

i s

provided

to

or the

s t i g a t

i s

conducted

by- A)

a

Federa l regu la to ry o r l a w e n

ement

agency; 8)

any

Member of Congress o r any commit tee of Congress ;

o r

C) a

person with supe sory

a u t h o r i t y

over t he

employee or such o t h e r person

working

fo r t h e

employer

who has

t he

a u t h o r i t y to i n v es t i g a t e ,

discover ,

or

t e rmina te misconduct)

18 U.S.C. 1514A. Sharkey has

a l l eged

t h a t her t e rmin a t io n was

mot

ed,

a t

as t in

p a r t , by

r ep o r t i n g

o l a t i o n s

t h a t

are



23/36

protec ted a c t i v i t i e s under SOX

regard ing

Cl ien t A

and

as such

Defendant 's motion

should

be denied .

1.

Pl a i n t i f f

did

did

not Have a Reasonable

Enumerat in SOX

806

In order

to qua l i fy

as protec ted

ac t

ty ,

"an

employee' s compla int

must de

n i t ly

and

s pe c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e

to

one

of the s ix

enumerat

catego

s"

of misconduct con ta ined

in SOX 806, i . e . mail

fraud,

wire

fraud,

bank

fraud,

t i e s

fraud, v io la t ion

of an SEC ru le or regu la t ion , or

v io la t ion of a

federa l

law r e l a t i n g to fraud

i n s t

shareholders . 18

U.S.C.

1514A(a)

(1);

see

also Allen

v . Admin.

Rev. Bd. 514 F.3d

468,

476-77

(5th Cir .

2008);

Fraser I

2005

WL

6328596,

a t

*8

("Protected

a c t iv i t y

must

impl ica te

the

subs tant ive

law

pro tec t ed in

[SOX]

de f in i t i ve ly

and

s pe c i f i c a l l y . " ) .

Genera l

inqui es

do

not

c o n s t i t u t e

pro te

a c t iv i t y .

" [ I J n

order

the

whis t leb lower

to

be

pro tec t ed by

[SOX], the repor ted

in fo rmat ion must have

a

c e r t a i n

degree

of

s pe c i f i c i t y .

whis t leb lower must

s t a t e pa r t i c u l a r

concerns

whi

, a t the very l e a s t ,

reasonably

i den t i a

responden t ' s conduct t ha t the complainant be l i eves to be

i l l e g a l . " Lerbs v. Buca Di Beppo I n c . 2004-S0X-8, 2004 DOLSOX

LEXIS

65,

a t

*33-34,

2004

W 5030304(U.S.D.O.L.

June

15,

2004) .

23



24/36

complaining employee 's be l i e f t t his

employer 's

conduct

v io la ted one of the enumerated r i e s must be both

objec t

ly

and sub jec t ive ly

reas

Lesh insky v . Te lven t

S. A.

10 C

v.

4511 JPO) ,

2013

W

18811877

S . D N . Y.

a

y 1,

2013)

.

Sharkey ' s repor t s t o Defendants as t o C l i en t

A

do not

co n s t i t u t e

pro tec t ed

a c t iv i t y .

P l a i n t i f f

f a i l s to d e f i n i t i v e l y

and

spe f i c a l l y

r e l a t e

her a l lega t ions

to

one

of the s ix

enumerat

ca tegor i e s

of

misconduct under

Each of the

enumerat

i e s

requi re

a scheme or

a r t i f i c e

to

defraud.

18

U.S.C.

1514A(a) (1);

Sharkey

I I 805

F. Supp.

2d

a t 55.

Pl a i n t i f f

u t t e r s

words t ha t her a l l eg a t i o n s s

r t

t ha t

Client

A

was

mail , wire ,

bank

or

s e c ur i t i e s

fraud,

but

does not how her fac ts support a s

or

a r t i f i c e

to

defraud, f

l en t in t en t ,

who was

being

def

by Client

A,

the nature

of purpor ted fraud,

o r

most

ant ly ,

how

these a l lega t ions

meet

the elements of the enumerat ca tegor i e s

required under SOX. See Nielsen

v.

ECOM Tech. . , No.

12

Civ. 5163 KBF) , 2012 W

6200613,

a t

*6

(S.D.N.Y.

Dec. 11, 2012)

(d ismiss ing aim

i l u r e to

a l lege f ac t s

re

o r

d i r e c t ly

and c a l l y r e l a t i n g

t o ba s i c e lements of

enumerated

s t a t u t e s ) ;

see

a l so Andaya 2012 W 1871511, a t *4

4



25/36

( What

i s miss ing

from these

a l lega t ions

i s cr imina l conduct ,

shareho lder f raud , o r f raudulent i n t e n t ) .

n t i f f ' s c i t ed preceden t invo lves

concre te

a l l ega t

s

o f

p o ten t i a l wire

or mail f raud o f f raud aga ins t

shareholders , and

r e s u l t i n g

oppos i t ion of

the defendants

a t

i s sue . See e .g . Leshinsky v.

ven t

GIT S.A.

2013 W

181187,

a t *5-15

(S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2013) (denying summary

judgment

where

p l a i n t i f f

complained

t ha t a company propos

using a

low

overhead r a t e i n t e rn a l l y ,

while

prov id ing a higher

r a te

to

make

appear

t ha t the company had reduced

i t s

p r o f i t ,

and was then cu t o f f

from

involvement in the process and l a t e r

t e rmina ted) ;

Mahony

v.

Keyspan Corp. 2007 W 805813, a t *1-2

(E.D.N.Y.

Mar.

12,

2007) ( p l a i n t i f f

repor ted ano ther 'S

concerns

about

ce r t a in

account ing p r ac t i c e s

of

a

publ ic company, which

could

r e su l t

in

f inanc ia l s ta tements

t were misleading

to

shareho lders ) ;

Perez

v . Progenies

Pharmaceut ica ls Inc .

2013

W

3835199,

a t

*1-4 (S.D.N.Y. Ju l . 24, 2013) ( p l a i n t i f f

complained

about

press

s ta tements

bel i eved

were incons i s ten t with the

ac tua l

r e su l t s

o f

a c l i n i c a l

t r i a l

and t h e r e fo r e

i l l e g a l

and was

almost immedia te ly t e rmina t

) . In

con t ras t ,

P l a i n t i f f does not

even

mention the elements requ i red by s t a tu t e s , o r expla

how

a l l eg ed misconduct q u a l i f i e s

fo r a

sp e c i f i c ca tegory

25



26/36

enumerated

under SOX.

Ins t

Pl a i n t i f f r e l i e s almost

exc lus ive ly on

her purpor ted l i e f

t t Cl ien t A

was engaged

in

money l aunder ing , which i s not

a

cr imina l s t a tu t e spec i f in

SOX nor i s an

SEC regu la t ion or a

law

a t ing to f raud

aga ins t shareho lders .

3

Even

i

P l a i n t i f f

reasonab ly bel i eved

4

t ha t

Client

A

was

engaged

in

money l aunder ing , such be l i e f

cannot form

the

bas is for a

SOX

whis t leb lower

cla im. See

Sharkey v . J .P. Morgan

Chase

& Co.,

e t a l .

805 F. Supp. 2d 45,

56

(S.D.N.Y.

2011)

( SOX

proh ib i t s

an

employer

from r e t a l i a t i ng

aga s t

an

employee

who

complains

about

any of

the

s ix

enumera

ca tegor i e s

of

misconduct

N

) .

Sharkey

has thus f a i l

to repor t formation with a ce r t a in de of

i f i c i t y

or

par t i cu la r concerns,

which,

a t the

very

l e a s t ,

reasonably

iden t i fy ,N conduct impl ica ted by the enumerated s t a tu t e s .

See,

Pl a i n t i f f a l so

c i t e s to

the Pat r io t

Act,

which

too

i s

not an enumerated

s t a tu t e in

SOX

4 Pl a i n t i f f ly a l leged

fac ts su f f ic ien t to

support a

motion

to

dismiss

as to her reasonable be l ie f , inc luding a l ions t ha t Cl ien t A (1) re fused

to provide business and f inancia in format ion; (2) t raded in the

Ost rager Account

without proper

au thor iza t ion ;

(3) stymied Pla in t f f ' s

e f fo r t s to comply with KYC

s

under

the

Bank Act, Pa t r io t

Act, and other

federa l

s e c u r i t i e s laws; and (4) deal t in merchandise from

Colombia. See

Sharkey,

805 F. . 2d

a t

55-56.

Discovery has

s ince

yie lded

evidence

t ha t Cl ien t A did

have

au thor iza t ion tc t r ade in the

Ostrager

Account,

t ha t

Client

A

t o ld

Pl a i n t i f f the

source of

the

funds in the

Ostrager

Account, and t ha t Cl ien t

A did in

fact want to comply,

and

ul

t imately did comply, with his

bus iness

and f inancial . informat ion. See

Stmt.

lI lI

12,

20, 25.)

26



27/36

Sha v

J P

Morgan hase CO

r

et

al . ,

No. 10 Civ. 3824

(RWS),

2011 W 135026,

a t *6

(S.D.N.Y.

Jan.

14,

2011) .

Further , Sharkey ' s

b e l i e f

was not sub jec t ive ly

reasonab le .

When P l a i n t i f f

her concerns to her

superv i so r , Sharkey s t a t ed t she f e l t uncomfor table

rd ing

the

[Cl ient ] fami ly r e l a t i o n s and

the

na tu re

of

ie s

i t s businesses

as well as

i t s re l a t ed

en t

and recommended

t ha t JPMC

detach

the

re t ions

the

PWM metro bus iness .

1f

(Stmt. II

20.) Pl a i n t i f f

went on

to say:

I want to be

mindful

of

the

fac t t ha t other LOB's

[ l ines of

business [ within the f i rm

have r e la t ionsh ips with t h i s c l i e n t and /or re l a t ed e n t i t i e s

and

may

wish

to

r e t a i n some

or

a l l of

t he i r

bus iness .

1f

Id . ) This

communication

did

not

ress

any

sp e c i f i c

concern

about

any

fraud

enumerated in

SOX

806,

but

merely t h a t Sharkey I t

uncomfor table ce r t a

areas

r e l a t i n g

t o C l i en t

A's

bus inesses . Fraser v

6958 (PAC), 2009 W 2601389, a t *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009) .

As

a Priva te Wea Mana

with

e leven

years of

in

the

f inanc ia l

indus t ry ,

t i s unre a l i s t i c

to

i n f e r

Pl a i n t i f f ,

i f she

had

a

ec t ive be l i e f

of

i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y by Cl ien t

A,

would have not

t

be l i e f e xp l i c i t ,

or

s t a t ed to her

superv i so rs t t

other

areas of the

f i rm

might

sh

to

r e t a i n

27



28/36

Client

A's bus iness . Fraser

v.

Fidu a s t

Co.

Int 1 ,

No. 04 Civ.

6958

) , 2009 W 2601389, a t

*8

(S.D.N.Y. Aug.

25, 2009)

( in

grant

summary judgment

r oyer , cour t

noted t ha t emplo

s

three-month

delay

en

d r a f t i n g and

sending email compla ing

of

a c t i v i t y

cas t s

doubt on

[his]

subjec t ive

b e l i e f t h a t

the

[complained-o

c t iv i t y ]

co n s t i t u t ed

a

v i o l a t i o n . ) ,

a

d , 396 F. App'x 734

(2d

Cir .

20l0) .

ss , Pl a i n t i f f

could not have had

a

rea

b e l i e f t h a t

JPMC

was v io l a t i n g

the

Pat r io t Act

in

f a i l i n g

to

remove

Client A,

even i f such conduct were

ac t ionable

under

SOX.

Pl a i n t i f f

was

ven the i n i t i a l in fo rmat ion regarding concerns

wi th Cl A from Defendants,

and

t o ld to

fo l low-up.

(Stmt. JT

10.)

When

i f f expressed

t 1

concerns

a f t e r ewing

t h i s in

ion , Lass i t e r her

to develop

s

about

her concerns ,

and

supported

her

s ion to

te rmina te .

See

Harp

558

F.3d

a t 725-26 ( The conclus ion

t ha t

[p ia i f f ]

did

not

reas

be l ieve a

fraud was being committed

i s

fu r the r

bu t t r es

by [ supe rv i so r ' s ] subsequent ac t ions in the case ,

including t ha t superv i so rs never t o ld

p l a i n t i f f

to

s top

the

i s sue ) .

P la in t i f f ' s recommendation for

na t ion

on

the bas i s t

Cl ien t A re fused to

provide

KYC

informat ion ,

Defendants

and

began t ak ing s t s to

e x i t

8



29/36

the

r e la t ionsh ip .

(Counter Stmt. rr 22

( c i t ing

Ex. 33: we have

ided

to e x i t

r e la t ionsh ip and w i l l be

sending a l e t t e r

t h i s

week ) ;

see

a l so

Ex. 48

(Grusczyk

to Pl a i n t i f f :

Mr. Kenney

sa id

the dec i s ion to ex i t was a

good

one . ) ) . There are

thus

no

c t s on which

a

i f f

could reasonab ly be l i

t ha t

JPM

was prepared

to

l a t e

i t s

ob l i ions

under

the Act:

if

ng,

the

f ac t s show

JPM

was t ry ing to meets

i t s KY

obl iga t ions

regard ing i en t

A

See

a v .

Charter Commc ns.,

Inc .

558

F.3d

722,

725-26

(7th

Cir .

2009)

(aff i rming

summary

judgment

in

favor

of

fendant p a r t l y

cause

superv i so r

support

p l a i n t i f f ' s

s t iga t ions

and

encouraged formal

documentation

of

concerns ) ; Allen v . Admin. Review Ed. , 514 F.3d

468,

481 (5th Cir . 2008)

( a s

[employer] not i n t en t iona l ly

cause

AS400

problem,

did not

conceal

it

and a t tempted

to

cor rec t it a

reasonab le

rson could

conclude

t h a t [employer] ' s

conduct did

not

o la te some

prov i s ion

of

federa l law

r e l a t i

to

fraud

aga ins t shareho lder s . ) .

Statements

A

were

not a

Facto r

in

Even i f P l a i n t i f f ' s a l lega t ions support

a

po ten t i a l

v io la t ion , Defendants have

es

l i shed t ha t they would have

29



30/36

i

taken

the same

unfavorable

personnel

ac t ion in the

absence

of

t

pro tec t ed behav ior . Leshinsky v. Telvent

GIT

r

S.A.,

2013 WL

1811877,

a t *6

(S.D.N.Y.

May 1,

2013) (quot ing Bechtel v.

Adminis

t i v

Review

Bd

r

United States Dep t o f

Labor,

710

F.3d

443, 447

(2d Cir .

2013)) .

Under

JPMC's

Correc t ive Action

di s ty i s

independent

grounds fo r immediate

To

es

i sh

a

SOX

whist leblower c la im,

P l a i n t i f f

must

prove

protec ted a c t iv i t y ,

namely her s ta tements

to

JPM

A,

co n t r i b u t ed

to

her t e rmina t ion . See

Bechtel,

710 F.

a t 451;

Pardy

v.

Gray,

No.

07 Civ.

6324,

2008

W 2756331,

a t

*5

(S.D.N.Y. Ju ly

15, 2008)

( [AJ

con t r ibu t ing

fac to r

means

any which,

a lone

or

in

connect ion with

other

f ac to r s [ , J t

to a f c t in any way the outcome of the

dec i s ion . ) .

P l a i n t i f f

r e l i e s

us

l y o n

the temporal bas i s

between

her

a l l eged

pro tec t

and

her

t e rmina t ion

to

es t ab l i s h

to

causa t ion .

y the

protec ted a c t i v i t y

and

the

e ac t

i s

a

s i g n i f i c a n t

fac to r

in consider ing

a rcumstant 1

show

of

causa t ion .

30



31/36

noted

t ha t

However, i t s presence does

not

compel

a

f inding

of causa t ion ,

i c u l a r l y when t he re

i s

a l eg i t ima te

in tervening

bas i s

the adverse ac t ion .

ser

v.

du ary

Trust

Co.,

I n t l , No.

04

Civ.

6958

(PAC), 2009 W 2601389, a t

*8

(S.D.N.Y.

.

25,

2009)

(quoting

ce v . Br is to l

Squibb Co. ,

2006-S0X-20,

2006 W 3246825, a t *20

(U.S.D.O.L.

Apr. 26, 2006)) . In such

cases, "mere

temporary proximi ty5, []

s not

compel

a f inding

of r e t a l i a t o r y

en t . Pardy v. Gray,

No. 07

Civ. 6324

(LAP),

2008

WL

2756331,

a t

*5

(S.D.N.Y.

Ju ly

15,

2008) .

Here,

the

undisputed

s ta tements

o f f ac t

ca t e t ha t

the l eg i t ima te ervening bas i s for

Sharkey ' s

te rmina t

was

her

shonesty to r superv isor , and her pas t r formance

def i c i enc

s6.

(Stmt. 28-32, 35-37,

41); see

also

Mil ler

v.

5

Pl a i n t i f f

a l l eges t ha t she began

the

whis t le

H

on

Cl ien t A

as

as

1

2009, over

th ree months

pr ior to

her te rminat ion . See Stmt

.

10,

16-17.) This t ime

frame

i s insuf f ic ien t

for temporal .

See

Fraser

v. Fiduc iary

Trust

Co., I n t l , No. 04 Civ. 6958 (PAC), 2009 WL 2601389, a t *8

(S.D.N.Y. Aug.

25(2009) ( in summary

j ,

cour t

s

three-month

between dra f t

email

ac t i v i t y

cas t s doubt on [his] sUbject ive be l i e f t ha t the

f - ac t iv i ty ] cons t i t u t ed a v io l a t ion .

U

6


use

o f

Perez,

2013

WL

3835199,

a t *9

to

show

tha t

where

the re

i s

a

dispute

as to

the

conduct prompt

t e rmina t ion

summary

judgment

i s

inappropr ia te , i s inappos i te . In Perez , the re was

no c lea r evidence

of

insubordina t ion

or

wrongdoing

of

the

conduct r e la t ing to

the

pro tec ted

ac t i v i t y

by

the

a i n t i f f to j u s t i f y te rminat ion . Here, the re i s

c l ea r evidence

of

def i c i enc i es

by

Sharkey

unre la ted

to

the

a l l ega t ions

regarding

Client

A. Thus, the

ins tan t case i s dis t inguishable

from

P l a i n t i f f ' s c i ted authori ty ,

in

which the in tervening ac t s were

3



32/36

S

f e l ,

Nicolaus Co., 812 F.

Supp. 2d 975,

989 (D. Minn.

2011)

( lack of

causa l connect ion between

i n t i f f ' s complain ts and

terminat ion

i s bo ls te red by P l a i n t i f f ' s on-going per formance

i ssues and the in te rven ing

events of May

2008

.

i s

no

competing

as ide from


personal

ews-that

[employer]

was incor rec t

in

i t s assessment

of

her la ing

formance.

even if [employer] misjudged

r

r rmance,

' f edera l

cour ts not s i t as rsonnel department t ha t

reexamines

an e n t i t y ' s

business i s i o n . ' (quot ing Johnson

v.

S te in Mart, Inc . ,

440 F. App'x

795,

801-02

(11th Cir . 2011)).

Defendants

e

i sh

an

ex tens ive

record

of these

f i c i enc ies :

Sharkey was

on

watch

l i s t cons i s t ing

of

a

list

people who

were s t ruggl ing in 2009

(Stmt.

30) , t he re

were

concerns about

her sloppy

work, inappropr ia te c l i e n t r e l a t i

i n a b i l i t y

to l low-up, t y to handle

t

mate r i a l , and

ul t imate d ishonesty . 28, 30, 36.

Thus,

even if

unre la ted

to

i n t i f f ' s

pro tec ted ac t iv i ty . See id . ( c i t Harp v.

Charter

Commc'ns, Inc . , 558 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir .2009) ( in t event was

employer ' s revenue i s sues tha t r esu l t ed in widespread f S ) i Fraser v.

Fidu

Trust

Co.

In t ' l ( Fraser

I I I ) , No.

04-CV-6958, 2009

W

2601389

(S.D.N.Y. .

25,

2009) (grant

summary judgment where

a l leged

ac t i v i t y was repor t ing inaccurac ies about an

in te rna l

document

with

respect

to

asse t s

under

management,

but

the

l eg i t ima te in t e

bas i s

for

[p l a in t i f f ' s ]

t e rmina t ion

was

[defendant ' s ] de te rmina t ion

tha t [p la in t i f f ]

was to

es tab l i sh

an unauthorized fund

U

; Mil ler

v. S t i f e l ,

Nicolaus &

Co., Inc . ,

812 F

.2d

975, 989

(D.Minn.2011) (grant ing

summary

judgment where p l a i n t i f f was

t e rminated

as a r e s u l t of in tervening events ,

spec i fLca l

on-going

i s sues

and

a or customer ' s

about

iff's performance)) .

32



33/36

Pl a i n t i f f

were ab

to es tab l i sh

a

prima fac ie case fo r

whis t leb lowing,

on the

undisputed

record , JPMC t e nated

a i n t i

fo r

reasons

unre la ted to

her

a l leged prot

ed

a c t iv i t y

and

which, in and of themselves , were va l id grounds for

t e rmina t ion . See Halloum

v. In t e l

Corp. ARB Case No.

4

068,

2006 W 618383,

a t

*6 ARB Jan.

31,

2006) f inding t h a t al though

employee proved

a l l

four elements of

whis t leb lower

cla im,

employer demonst ra ted t ha t

[emplo did

not i n t eg ra te

himself

o

[employer ' s ]

workforce

and

t ha t fa i l ed

to

perform

up

to

expec ta t ions . These were

s u f f i c i e n t ,

non-d i scr

na to ry reasons

to seek

his t e rmina t ion as

an empl The record a l so

ind ica t e s t ha t [employer] could

have red [employee]

immedia te ly

a f t e r l ea rning t ha t

he

had

su r r e p t i t i o u s l y recorded

conversat ions with

employees.

H

i n t e r n a l

c i t a t i ons omi t t ed) ;

see a l so

Pardy

2008

W

2756331, a t *6

(grant employer 's

summary

judgment

motion where employer proved by c lea r

and

convinc ing evidence

employee was terminated

r reasons

r a te

a l leged protec ted ac t i v i t y ) .

As such,

Pl a i n t i f f

has i l e d to show

a

causal connect ion between

her

purported

pro tec t ed

ac t

y and

Defendants ' dec is ion to t e rmina te

her

employment. im v

Boeing Co. 487 F

App'x

356, 357

(9th Cir .

2012) ( Because

[employer]

sen ted c lea r

and conv inc i

dence

of

i t s be l i e f t ha t

[employee] had been

insubord ina te

33



34/36

and was subjec t to discharge

on

t h a t bas i s we need not reach the

ques t ion

of

whether [employee]

made

out

a

prim f c ie case .

Although

[p l a in t i f f ]

denied

he was subordinate , he presen ted

no

evidence giving

a

mater ia l ly d i f f e r e n t

account

of hi s

conduct . )

Even without Defendant 's l eg i t imate

in te rvening

bas i s

for d ischarging Sharkey, the re i s no evidence

es tab l i sh ing t h a t


ac t ions

regarding

Client A in any way cont r ibuted to

her t e rmina t ion .

Several

people

were involved

in the dec i s ion

to terminate

P l a i n t i f f ,

in

p a r t i c u l a r Lass i t e r , Green, and

Grande, a l l

of

whom

were deposed.

Each

t e s t i f i e d

t ha t Client A

was

never

mentioned

in the

d i scuss ions

about

whether

to

terminate

P l a i n t i f f ,

but

r a the r

t ha t

the dec i s ion

was

based

on

Sharkey 's dishones ty

to

her immediate superv i so r fo l lowing

a

h is to ry

of

per fo rmance- re la ted

concerns. (Stmt.

28-32,

35-37,

41.) There i s

no

evidence t ha t Green

or

Kenney were even aware

of P l a i n t i f f ' s

a l leged

concerns

about Client

A. Far from

a

post-hoc

explanat ion for a t e rmina t ion dec is ion

or

a

pre-

t ex tua l motive , Defendants c l e a r l y exp la ined the reasons

for

terminat ion

to

Sharkey,

who

did not a t

the

t ime

dispute the

accusat ions

of dishones ty or voice

concerns t ha t

her

t e rmina t ion

was r e l a t ed

to

her

s tance

regard ing

Cl ien t A.

(Stmt. ~ ~ 4 0 - 4 1 ;

4



35/36

see

l so Weiss v. JPMorgan

hase Co. 332 F

App'x

659,

663

(2d Cir . 2009) .

Pl a i n t i f f

contends t h a t Kenney's response

to

Green 's e-mai l about

Sharkey ' s

performance concerns , which

corresponds in t ime

to


dishonesty to

Lass i t e r , t ha t

Okay.

Sometimes

t

doesn ' t t ake long for people t o s t ep on

t he i r

own

fee t , shows t ha t the Defendants were

wait ing for

an

excuse to f i r e Sharkey.

(Counter

Stmt.

CJ

41.)

Rather ,

t h i s

conversa t ion

confirms a

h is to ry

of

problems with Sharkey ' s

conduct

independent ly

j u s t i fy i n g t e rmina t ion .

onclusion

Because

Sharkey

has not s u f f i c i e n t ly presen ted what

fraud ex i s t ed

or how t

impl ica tes

an

enumerated ca tegory

under

SOX and because the re was independent cause for

her

terminat ion,

Defendant 's motion

for summary judgment i s granted .

I t i s

so ordered .

5



36/36

ewYork

Y

December I t 2 13

6


Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan, SDNY Summary Judgment Order

Documents