New lawsuit challenges HR’s use of personal credit data after leave
Capital One is facing allegations that it fired a longtime manager after medical leave and an HR probe into LGBTQ‑related purchases on his personal credit card.
In a lawsuit filed December 4, 2025, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, Enrique Franco accuses Capital One Financial Corp. of wrongful termination, retaliation, invasion of privacy, negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual discrimination under Title VII and violation of California’s sick leave protections. He is seeking a jury trial.
Franco, a citizen of California, says he spent roughly 23 years with Capital One and its predecessor, holding roles in operations, contact‑center management, underwriting, offshore center development and field marketing. He ultimately served as senior manager on the REI card marketing team. According to the filing, his performance reviews were consistently “Strong” or “Above Strong,” and he had no significant disciplinary history.
The dispute centers on a year of health issues and leave requests. In late 2024, Franco requested time off for mental health. Capital One, he says, approved medical leave from about January through March 2025. Although his provider recommended six months away, Franco returned early, claiming he felt pressured by repeated messages from his supervisor, Kathryn Graham, and colleagues urging him back with lines such as “We miss you,” “You are awesome,” and “We really need you back.”
Soon after returning, the filing says, Franco developed a serious radial nerve injury in April 2025 that affected his dominant right hand and made typing, writing and other essential duties difficult. On Graham’s suggestion, he took a second medical leave from July through October 2025. During this stretch, he alleges, he received almost no communication from his supervisor or peers. When he asked whether his job would still be there, Graham allegedly responded that she “could not confirm” the position would exist.
Franco returned to work on October 30 and 31, 2025. On November 3, he says, the day felt like a normal workday until a meeting suddenly appeared on his calendar for 9:30 a.m. the next morning with HR and Associate Relations. The subject: “irregular corporate card activity.”
During that November 4 call, Franco alleges, HR questioned him about transactions on his personal Capital One credit card, including LGBTQ‑related purchases such as a gift card and a dating app, which were unrelated to business operations. He says some charges had already been reported as fraudulent and documented with a police report.
The lawsuit claims someone inside Capital One accessed, reviewed or used his personal financial information without consent, and that these charges were used in deciding to end his employment. Later that morning, around 11:15 a.m., Franco says he was called into a termination meeting with Graham and an HR business partner and told he was being fired for “falsifying bank records.” When he raised concerns about ongoing medical treatment and losing his insurance, HR allegedly replied, “The decision is final.”
According to the filing, his laptop access was disabled immediately and his phone and tablet access were cut off by the next day. Franco also claims he could not view termination documents, paystubs or PTO records because links in his termination email were inaccessible outside the internal network. He later alleges he learned that others were told he had “left for an exciting new opportunity,” a statement he says conflicts with the reason given in the termination meeting.
Franco argues Capital One had no right to review or rely on his personal account charges when making employment decisions. He contends he was fired because of his disabilities, his use of protected medical and sick leave, his sexual orientation, his ethnicity and defendants’ financial and operational motives.
He is seeking US$3.8 million in actual damages, US$2.5 million for emotional distress, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint is dated December 3, 2025.
All of these claims are allegations at an early stage of the case, and the court has not made any findings on the merits.
