The company allegedly let him go two hours after he raised concerns with the board
A former title insurance executive is alleging that HR repeatedly ignored his complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation over more than a decade.
Joshua Bullock, who worked as an assistant vice president within the Fidelity National corporate enterprise across two separate stints — first in Texas from 2011 to 2018, then in New York from July 2024 to August 2025 — filed a federal lawsuit on April 16, 2026, in the Southern District of New York against three Fidelity National entities: Fidelity National Management Services, LLC, National Title Insurance of New York, Inc., and Fidelity National Title Insurance Services, LLC (Case No. 1:26-cv-03119).
The case paints a troubling picture of what can happen when internal complaint channels allegedly fail at every turn.
According to the filing, Bullock raised concerns internally on multiple occasions about sexual harassment, homophobic slurs in the workplace, and threatening conduct by a supervisor. In one instance, a supervisor allegedly told Bullock she kept a "voodoo doll" of him and intended to put pins in it. When Bullock reported the incident to HR, the filing states, the response was laughter — not an investigation.
In another instance, Bullock's own assistant allegedly called him a homophobic slur after he raised performance issues. The filing claims no corrective action followed.
What may raise the most eyebrows among HR professionals, though, is the allegation around disability accommodations. In early 2025, Bullock reportedly sought reasonable accommodations for stress-related health conditions. Rather than initiate the interactive process required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, his HR contact allegedly treated the request as one for personal leave — and never followed through on any workplace modifications.
Then came the termination. On August 1, 2025, at roughly 11:43 a.m., Bullock sent a formal written notice to the company's board of directors outlining his concerns about ADA violations, retaliation, and harassment, and warning that he would pursue remedies with the EEOC unless the company took immediate corrective action. According to the filing, he was let go approximately two hours later with no meaningful explanation.
The filing also alleges that the company rehired Bullock in 2024 knowing full well about his prior complaints, an OSHA filing, and earlier legal proceedings — and that the same patterns of retaliation picked up right where they left off.
Before going to court, Bullock filed charges with the EEOC in October 2025. The agency issued right-to-sue notices in January 2026 after finding reasonable cause to believe that violations had occurred with respect to some or all of the charges, and after failing to broker a settlement.
The lawsuit, which includes twelve causes of action spanning federal, state, and city law, seeks compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost commissions, punitive damages, and liquidated damages. A jury trial has been requested.
No response has been filed by the defendants, and no determination has been made on the merits of the claims.
For HR leaders, the case is worth watching — not for its outcome, which remains far off, but for the pattern it describes: what allegedly happens when complaint after complaint goes unanswered, and the compounding legal exposure that follows.
