Four years of top reviews, a new manager, then a PIP and a security escort
A data science senior manager says he spent four years earning strong reviews at Vanguard - then got a new boss in January 2025 and was out of a job by September.
The worker filed a federal lawsuit against the Vanguard Group on September 28, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging race, national origin, and age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
According to the complaint, the worker - who is Black, of Kenyan national origin, and was 41 at the time of his firing - joined Vanguard in 2021 as a senior manager in data science. For his first four years, the filing states, he supervised a team of ten to fifteen people, received consistently strong annual appraisals from two senior directors who outranked his eventual replacement supervisor, and earned significant salary increases and bonuses every year.
That changed in January 2025, the complaint alleges, when a new manager took over.
The filing alleges the new manager's treatment was "noticeably less favorable" than what the worker's non-Black, non-Kenyan, and younger colleagues received. Within months, the complaint states, the worker was pulled into regular coaching sessions and marked "off track" on his first mid-year review under the new supervisor - despite every one of his direct reports being rated "on track."
During that mid-year review, the complaint alleges, the manager told the worker he "did not look like a Senior Manager."
The filing describes a pattern of selective scrutiny. Three of the worker's direct reports were promoted in early 2025 for outstanding impact - promotions celebrated at division-wide town halls attended by hundreds - yet the manager still questioned the worker's fitness for the role, according to the complaint. The manager said as much verbally and in writing, the filing alleges, despite never raising similar concerns about non-Black, non-Kenyan senior managers.
Then there was the hiring directive. In February 2025, the complaint alleges, the manager insisted the worker hire a specific candidate - described in the filing as a younger, white woman with no prior leadership experience - for an open manager position. The manager ordered the worker not to interview anyone else and to pull the job posting, the filing states. That hire was then given sole management of the team's largest client, a responsibility previously shared.
One coaching-session detail stands out. According to the complaint, the manager coached the worker on how to use "performance issues" as a reason to push out employees "who were not viewed as a good fit, even if those employees were performing satisfactorily and were meeting expectations." The filing contends that is precisely what the manager then did to the worker himself.
In May 2025, the complaint alleges, the manager marked the worker "off track" again - this time citing missteps by the very hire the manager had insisted upon, and by a peer on a different team. Neither received negative reviews. The worker was placed on a coaching plan, described in the filing as the equivalent of a performance improvement plan.
The worker pushed back. On or about May 28, 2025, according to the complaint, he raised a formal written complaint with HR, reporting that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his age, race, and national origin. He submitted a written rebuttal through Vanguard's Workday system documenting his team's accomplishments and attaching written praise from senior stakeholders.
According to the filing, the manager's response was brief: "this does not change anything."
The worker followed up with HR, the complaint states, providing screenshots, emails, team surveys, and other evidence. HR responded verbally and found no evidence of discrimination, according to the filing. No documentation of the investigation was provided to the worker.
What came next, the complaint alleges, was escalation - not resolution.
In late July 2025, the filing states, the worker was moved from the coaching plan to a formal performance improvement plan. The timing is central to the complaint's retaliation claim: the PIP landed less than two months after the worker's written HR complaint, and just three days after he filed a charge with the EEOC and told HR he had done so.
The complaint challenges the PIP on multiple fronts. It alleges the plan cited problems with a group project shared equally among the worker and three colleagues - all described in the filing as white, American-born, and under 40 - yet only the worker was put on a PIP. The project had been completed successfully and to the satisfaction of division partners, the filing states.
The plan's language draws its own scrutiny in the complaint. The filing alleges the PIP twice referenced the possibility of termination, set success measures described as vague - "clarity of strategic direction" and "observable growth in subject matter leadership" - and included action items marked as "not exhaustive."
Meanwhile, the complaint states, the worker and his team had delivered at least fifteen projects between January and July 2025, including a risk reporting package that drew written praise from the chief risk officer's team. All of it, the filing alleges, was ignored.
The complaint also describes failed attempts to escalate. The worker asked HR to alert two senior leaders about the situation, and HR confirmed in writing on May 28, 2025, that both had been informed, the filing states. Over the next three months, according to the complaint, neither responded to the worker's emails, progress updates, or shared documentation. One cancelled a scheduled meeting. The other, who had authority over the manager, did not reassign him.
In late August or early September 2025, the complaint states, the worker took it directly to the manager's supervisor during a one-on-one meeting, providing a written slide deck a week in advance.
Two weeks later, on September 19, 2025, the filing alleges, the worker was invited to a virtual meeting and fired. The stated reason was a "gap in performance." During the meeting, according to the complaint, an HR analyst called building security to locate the worker in the building and walk him out.
The complaint brings claims under Title VII (race and national origin), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Section 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. It seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
For HR teams, the case puts a practical question on the table: when a PIP lands days after a discrimination complaint and skips the colleagues who shared the same work, what does the documentation trail actually show?
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings in the matter.
