HR leaders eye KPMG as ex-manager claims sham PIP and staffing squeeze
A former KPMG manager alleges the Big Four firm used a disputed performance plan in a case involving discrimination, retaliation and medical leave claims.
In a lawsuit filed November 26, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Frank Jones, an African American/Black Christian and former manager in KPMG’s Deal Advisory – Mergers & Acquisitions Services group, describes his experience in the firm’s Technology Center of Excellence. He brings claims of race, color and religious discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The filing reflects only his allegations; the court has not made any findings.
Jones says he first worked for KPMG from approximately 2014 to 2018, then returned in or about late 2022 as a Manager based in Atlanta, with an annual base salary of approximately $218,900 plus eligibility for annual bonus compensation. Within a group of roughly 100 professionals, he alleges he was one of only one or two Black male employees.
According to the lawsuit, his early performance reviews were strong. In or about early 2024, a managing director rated him as performing at or above the next level in most categories, and his then–People Management Leader, Anuj Saxena, told him he was on track for promotion. The complaint states that his documented performance evaluations did not identify the serious performance deficiencies later cited in a Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP.
Jones says that when he was rehired in December 2022, he and Saxena discussed that there was no strict in‑office requirement and that his proximity to his children’s school and his caregiving responsibilities were important considerations. After KPMG announced a new in‑office policy in early 2023, he raised his childcare obligations and requested an Alternative Work Arrangement. He alleges that from approximately May 2023 through September 2024, partner Hugh Nguyen and Saxena did not raise in‑office metrics with him, but those metrics were later used against him in the PIP as a performance deficiency.
The filing describes a turning point in March and April 2024. Jones alleges that Jeffrey Zhang, described as an Asian male, assigned him to a demanding project immediately before previously scheduled paid time off that included Good Friday, which he observes as a significant religious holiday, and Easter weekend. He says he told Zhang about his religious observance and that his children would be out of school and require care, yet Zhang pressured him to work during his PTO, scheduled early‑morning and late‑night calls and criticized his work in an aggressive and demeaning manner.
Jones says he raised his concerns with partner Harpreet Gill, also described as an Asian male, explaining that Zhang’s conduct was unreasonable and interfered with his religious and parental obligations. According to the lawsuit, Gill berated Jones’s performance, suggested he might not be a fit for the group, threatened his professional reputation if he did not work over Easter weekend and aligned himself with Zhang. Under that pressure, Jones alleges, he worked on Good Friday and over Easter weekend, after which negative and, he says, false feedback began to circulate.
On or about September 18, 2024, KPMG convened a meeting with Jones, Nguyen, Saxena and HR representative Beverly Caskey Westbrook. Jones alleges he was told he could either accept a “career transition” severance package and leave the firm or agree to a 60‑day PIP. After reviewing the document, he claims it contained falsified feedback from projects that did not exist or did not reflect his actual performance, cherry‑picked only the first part of the year under certain Asian male leaders and omitted nine months of work under others, including a Black male managing director who had given him strong reviews.
Jones says he told Westbrook and others that the PIP was fraudulent and that he could not be expected to improve on feedback from “imaginary” projects. According to the filing, Westbrook initially said the PIP’s timeframe would be removed while the firm investigated, but KPMG never substantively corrected or removed the information and continued to insist that he comply.
On October 1, 2024, Jones sent a detailed written report summarizing what he described as wrongdoing and discriminatory behavior by several leaders to HR, senior partner Joanne Heng and Ethics & Compliance personnel. That same day, Westbrook offered him a severance package, which was increased from four months to six months of severance with COBRA coverage, if he would leave the firm and waive his claims, the lawsuit states. Jones alleges he refused and reiterated that he wanted the PIP corrected or removed and his discrimination concerns addressed.
Later in October, during a practice‑wide call, Jones discovered his name had been removed from the managers’ “available staffing” list, which he says meant he would not be staffed on projects and would be harmed in terms of utilization. On the same call, the lawsuit alleges, two initiatives he had spearheaded – the Knowledge Management Incentive and the AERT Engagement Form Refresh – were presented, but Nguyen publicly credited junior White and Asian male colleagues and did not mention Jones.
The filing links these workplace events to health concerns. Jones alleges that during this period he was diagnosed with stress‑induced alopecia areata, began losing clumps of hair from his face and body and developed depression‑like symptoms. In November 2024, he inquired about medical leave and KPMG approved FMLA leave from approximately December 1, 2024, through February 24, 2025. After his return, the lawsuit says, KPMG attempted to place him on projects but continued to insist he operate under the same PIP, which had not been corrected.
Jones alleges that he continued to raise concerns, including to the Head of Ethics & Compliance, described in the lawsuit as an African American woman, specifically stating that the PIP was fraudulent and that the firm’s responses were discriminatory and retaliatory.
On May 12, 2025, KPMG terminated his employment. According to the lawsuit, KPMG has documented internally that he was terminated for allegedly “failing to complete job duties” and “refusing work,” and when he asked why he was being terminated, HR told him, “we’re not getting into all that right now.”
Jones is seeking back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement or instatement to a comparable position, compensatory damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages under the FMLA, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. The court has not ruled on his allegations, and KPMG’s full response is not reflected in the filing.
