The bank skipped its own layoff safeguard - and a court took notice
A federal appeals court revived two fired executives' retaliation claim against US Bank, while upholding the dismissal of their harassment and age claims.
On August 7, 2026, a federal appeals court issued a split decision in a lawsuit brought by two former vice presidents at US Bank. The men said the bank fired them in retaliation after one reported their supervisor to the ethics hotline. They also claimed a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, and one added an age-discrimination claim.
The trial court had dismissed every claim before trial. The appeals court agreed on most - but not on retaliation.
Here is the timeline that troubled the court. One executive filed his ethics complaint on March 27, 2018. Two days later, an HR business partner flagged it to the senior executive who by then oversaw the group. Within days, that executive "question[ed] the timing" of the complaint, said he "wouldn't be surprised to see [the second executive] take a similar tac[k]," and signaled he would soon fire both men. The bank terminated them on May 15, 2018, pointing to a reduction in force.
That explanation ran into trouble. The executive's own supervisor testified he had "[n]o expectations" that anyone would lose a job in the reorganization. Open roles sat unfilled on the team. And the bank appears to have skipped its own layoff safeguard - a peer group analysis that "must be completed" before employees are selected for elimination. The manager finished it himself, after he had already decided to fire the two men. The court noted the bank took that step so seriously that it had fired the reported supervisor, in part, for failing to properly execute one.
The court did not decide that the men were fired in retaliation. It held only that the close timing, a disputed business rationale, and a bypassed procedure were enough to let a jury decide.
US Bank fared better on the other claims. The harassment claim failed on the Faragher/Ellerth defense, which protects an employer that both prevents and promptly corrects harassment when an employee fails to use its reporting channels. The bank had a clear policy, opened an investigation within weeks, substantiated the complaint, and disciplined the supervisor. The employees, by contrast, had delayed reporting and kept their accounts vague.
The age claim failed too. Spreading a departed worker's duties among existing staff, the court said, is not "replacement" under the law.
The retaliation claim now returns to the district court for further proceedings.
