4 ms·

"permanent blacklist"? That sounds like the High Tech Employees Lawsuit case, but a much easier win for a more sympathetic class of victim.

• newjersey 10y ago
  Not to be overly dramatic but I would imagine it depends on who the jury sympathizes with.
  • EpicEng 10y ago
    Yes, and it's very likely they will sympathize moreso with a woman making 35k who was fired for reporting a crime.
  • carterehsmith 10y ago
    > it depends on who the jury sympathizes with It does, but can you really see a 'jury of peers' sympathizing with Wells Fargo in these circumstances?
    • newjersey 10y ago
      I do. I don't have a crystal ball or any insider information but I believe the stakes are higher for a corporation than for the plaintiff because defeating an assault could send a message to other potential claimants. (Think runaway juror) I don't know how much weight you'll give to some study but for What it is worth, here's a semi related article http://nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html http://nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html https://archive.fo/rTQIF https://archive.fo/rTQIF Of course, the defense knows this and this unwillingness to go to trial factors in when talking about exact dollars and cents of a settlement. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter because I imagine most of the share holders of Wells Fargo are not in on any deal like this and arguably are the victim here more than the customers or the employees of Wells Fargo. I feel the same way when some city pays to settle a case brought up against a city employee's actions. Cases like this are a net loss to the society because likely nothing will change for the better. The cost of getting caught just gets factored into the cost of doing business. Sorry if I sound ambivalent or worse cynical. It is because I'm trying to tell myself that I'm wrong and things will change for the better if this woman wins her lawsuit against Wells Fargo. However, I know that this John Stumpf fellow will be back as either a consultant or a board member within a year. He didn't lose anything. Others have little incentive not to follow his lead.
• yelnatz 10y ago
  According to the episode it was the U5 form[0]. Banks use the form as one of the employment references. [0] http://www.finra.org/industry/terminate-individuals-registration http://www.finra.org/industry/terminate-individuals-registra...
  • sillysaurus3 10y ago
    http://i.imgur.com/KM2fzuS.png http://i.imgur.com/KM2fzuS.png Every time she tries to get a job anywhere, that form will be checked by her potential employer?
    • sliverstorm 10y ago
      I mean, it makes sense, there's a certain amount of trust involved in finance so you'd like to know if a prospective employee had been fired in the past on suspicion of fraud/salami slicing/whatever
      • eric_h 10y ago
        It makes sense if humans were perfect. When an employee objects to unethical behavior and acts accordingly, it makes less sense.
        • disposablezero 10y ago
          Exactly. Libertarianism and communism seem like perfect utopias but "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." Unfortunately, company insiders may see little difference in a "misbehaving" employee, regardless if it's in the public good and/or for personal gain, because limiting the threat of public exposure is often the paramount priority in the short-term, which may ultimately go against long-term business and customer relationships. And an "untrustworthy" bank is unlikely to survive on it's own for very long.
          • stickfigure 10y ago
            This form appears to be required by government. No matter what you think about libertarianism, this isn't it.