Praised as 'invaluable,' then placed on a PIP - she says the timing tells the story
A data scientist says John Hancock praised her work for years - then fired her weeks after she raised concerns about unequal treatment.
Dr. Saeedeh D. Shekarpour has sued John Hancock Life Insurance Company, accusing the insurer of retaliation and national-origin discrimination. She filed her complaint in federal court in Massachusetts on June 17, 2026.
The case turns on a contradiction that should catch the eye of any HR leader: a documented record of praise, followed by a sudden exit.
According to the complaint, Shekarpour - an Iranian-American data scientist with a Ph.D. - earned a "HIGHLY EFFECTIVE" rating in her December 2024 year-end review. The filing says her manager, an AVP in Advanced Analytics, called her "an invaluable asset" and noted she was pursuing "a future role as a technical leader."
Then the timeline tightens. The complaint alleges the same manager gave Shekarpour five formal recognition awards between February and June 11, 2025. One award, the filing says, landed on June 11, 2025 - one day after she raised concerns about unequal treatment - and praised her "thoughtful feedback on how our team can work better together."
Five weeks later, according to the complaint, that same AVP placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan. The filing says the plan cited deficiencies in SQL competency, data proficiency, and professional conduct - three issues that, the complaint alleges, had never appeared in any formal review across her two-plus years at the company.
She was let go on September 4, 2025, the complaint says, less than two months after the PIP began. The filing states the termination letter offered no performance reason, saying only that John Hancock "has elected to terminate your at-will employment."
For HR professionals, the lesson sits in the paper trail. The complaint frames this as a retaliation case proved by the employer's own records. Shekarpour says she raised concerns in writing on June 5 and verbally on June 10, 2025 - activity she argues is protected under Title VII's opposition clause, which shields workers who object to practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory.
The filing argues the short gap between those complaints and the PIP, plus the lack of any earlier documented concerns, points to retaliatory intent. It also alleges the PIP rested on a "one-sided account" from her direct manager - a lead data scientist who, the complaint says, had praised her work in writing only weeks before. Shekarpour claims she was held to different standards than colleagues of other national origins.
On the night she was fired, according to the complaint, Shekarpour emailed the company's director of employee relations and copied senior leadership, including the chief marketing officer. The filing says the reply was, "I did receive your email. We will be in touch after reviewing your concerns," and that no meaningful investigation followed.
Representing herself, Shekarpour brings retaliation, discrimination, and hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and Massachusetts Chapter 151B. She seeks back pay, front pay, lost pension and incentive pay, and punitive damages. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a Notice of Rights on April 6, 2026.
The allegations have not been tested in court. John Hancock has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
