The filing says the accuser was sidelined while the people he named stayed put
A former JPMorgan banker's lawsuit lays out, step by step, how he says the bank handled his complaint of discrimination and abuse.
In a complaint filed July 27, 2026, in Manhattan federal court, the banker alleges that he was the top-producing originator on JPMorgan's leveraged-finance team and its only non-white member, and that supervisors and colleagues routinely addressed him with a racial slur instead of his name, mocked his South Asian heritage in team group chats, and treated his hiring as what the filing calls a "point system" diversity quota.
The complaint goes further than slurs. It alleges that his direct supervisor, an executive director, tied his expected promotion to submitting to her sexual advances, told him repeatedly that she "owned" him, and subjected him to unwanted sexual contact. The filing also alleges she once gave him a substance without his knowledge to affect his sexual performance. According to the complaint, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office opened a criminal investigation into her alleged conduct.
The banker says he reported the racial abuse and the sexual coercion in a detailed written complaint through his lawyers in May 2025, while on JPMorgan-approved leave to care for his seriously ill mother.
The filing then describes the bank's response. The complaint alleges that JPMorgan did not investigate the people he named or discipline anyone. It also alleges that JPMorgan later told him it "could not substantiate" his claims. In the meantime, the complaint says, the bank cut his pay by more than half - from about $8,420.99 to roughly $3,277.91 in one biweekly period - disabled his systems access, and placed him on indefinite involuntary leave, while everyone he had accused stayed in place. According to the complaint, when he asked an employee-relations partner on a recorded call whether he had done something wrong, the partner responded, "No, we're not saying that at all," and would not deny that the leave was retaliatory.
The complaint alleges the bank interfered with his family and medical leave and did not restore him to an equivalent role when he returned in May 2025 - a restoration the Family and Medical Leave Act requires. It alleges retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, and New York state and city human-rights laws, and unpaid wages under state labor law.
The banker says he resigned in October 2025. He then joined another firm, Bregal Sagemount, at about $2.5 million a year, the complaint says, and was terminated on April 2, 2026 - one business day after JPMorgan received notice of his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint alleges the bank told market participants he had been "fired" and was "suing" it, statements the filing says were false.
For HR professionals, the complaint sets out a sequence worth noting. It alleges that a complaint naming specific people did not lead to an investigation of them, that the person who complained was removed while those he accused were not, and it raises the question of what managers say in informal reference calls after an employee leaves.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
