A 7 became a 5.2 in days, and then he was the only one let go
A former banker says Mercantile Bank fired him for refusing to lie under oath and for challenging a supervisor's remarks about Muslim clients.
The worker, who joined Mercantile Bank in September 2024 as a commercial banker and first vice president, sued the bank and two of its executives in federal court on July 16, 2026. For HR professionals, the complaint reads as a cautionary tale about performance reviews that shift suddenly right after an employee speaks up.
The worker, who is Lebanese-American and Muslim, alleges the trouble traced back to hiring. According to the complaint, two bankers who followed a new supervisor over from Flagstar Bank steered "over $100 million" of business to Mercantile from current Flagstar clients "despite non-solicitation agreements that each had signed with Flagstar." He says he flagged possible unlawful conduct and made clear he would not lie under oath.
The filing alleges that a senior executive "coached junior bankers at Mercantile to keep these two former Flagstar employees off of communications" about the deals, worried the messages "would become discoverable in litigation." That executive, the complaint says, added: "we don't want that!" The worker says he told his supervisor that if asked to testify about it, "he would testify truthfully."
Then came a drive through Dearborn. After a client meeting in January 2026, the worker alleges, his supervisor asked "how did these people get their money" and "what the f*** do these people do to have these houses." When the worker asked directly - "What's the issue here, Joe, is it because they're Muslim? I'm Muslim, is that a problem?" - the supervisor allegedly said that at earlier banks the "Jewish banker would serve the Jewish community, and the Indian banker would serve the Indian community." The worker says he answered, "Well, this is my community."
What happens next is the part HR leaders will study. Two days later, according to the complaint, the senior executive sent a calendar invite titled "Changes Update" that became a review of the worker's 2025 performance, centered on what the executive called "oddities" - minor issues the filing says had been resolved months before. The worker says he was first told to expect a 7 out of 10, then handed a 5.2 days later, along with word that a performance plan was coming. The executive then terminated him, the complaint alleges. The worker says he was the only banker in his role let go, even though several peers had underperformed him.
He brings five counts: wrongful termination against public policy under Michigan common law; discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin under Title VII and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; and retaliation under both Title VII and ELCRA. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 3, 2026 and received a right-to-sue letter on June 25, 2026, according to the complaint. He is seeking economic, non-economic, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.
The compliance lesson is about timing and paper. A performance score that drops from a 7 to a 5.2 in days, an "oddities" narrative that surfaces only after protected activity, and a termination that follows close behind are the kinds of sequences a plaintiff can use to argue pretext. Consistent, contemporaneous documentation is what separates a defensible performance exit from a retaliation claim.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled.
