Even though human beings are supposedly the most intelligent species that the world has ever seen, when it comes to assessing something really beneficial, our perspective becomes highly restrictive. We have a long track record of failing to recognize the flipside within the said contexts, and it has hurt us on many occasions. At times, these detrimental effects have also been felt by a large section of people, thus creating major unrest. To neutralize such a conundrum, we dabbled around and conceived an idea that saw different aspects of our lives getting closely regulated, hence ensuring a safer experience across the board. The idea quickly proved to be a big breakthrough, as we found ourselves better protected against the ulterior motives of many entities. However, the outlaws were not going to take this lying, so after a time, they started bypassing the established regulations. On top of that, when technology entered the picture, these entities used it extensively to further fuel their unscrupulous pursuit. Unaffected by the rules, they continued to grow, and with every step-up, the ripple effects of their actions become more severe and far-reaching. Nevertheless, by adopting a tech-centric stance, the regulators are now strapping in to close the gap, and their latest target is presented to them by none other than one of the target’s own former troopers.
A former JPMorgan Chase & Co. compliance executive, Shaquala Williams has sued the bank after she allegedly got fired for pointing out the inconsistencies in its anti-corruption controls. Furthermore, the former JPMorgan vice-president claimed she had legitimate reasons to believe that the bank was actively violating terms of settlements it reached with Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission in 2016. As if that wasn’t big of a bombshell, Ms. Williams also stated that the bank’s compliance program is essentially riddled with incompetent monitoring, testing, reporting, and training procedures.
According to the complaint, Ms. Williams had initially tried to put-forth these concerns in front of her superiors. She even filed written complaints with JPMorgan’s human resources department, but the bank’s response was something unexpected. She was asked to not move forward with her queries in this regard. It wasn’t long after that when the treatment of Ms. Williams by her employer changed entirely.
“In response to Williams’s protected activities, the bank repeatedly subjected Williams to adverse actions,” the lawsuit stated. “Over time, the bank marginalized Williams’s role at the Bank, including removing responsibilities, giving an inaccurate performance review, issuing her a written warning, and firing her.”
Filed in the Federal Court of Manhattan, New York, the lawsuit now looks to seek damages from the bank over a violation of the law shielding whistleblowers.
