Story 163

I raised concerns with Citi’s Employee Relations about the circumstances of my layoff. I had been eliminated as part of what the bank characterized as a reorganization. I did not accept that characterization. The pattern I observed and reported was the systematic elimination of experienced employees that a senior manager in the Consumer Bank’s risk division with a documented history of bullying, harassment and discriminatory conduct could not control.

Employee Relations opened an investigation, with which I cooperated fully. During my interview, the investigator asked several questions in rapid succession. One of them was: Why do you think you shouldn’t have been eliminated as part of the reorg?

The question had no legitimate place in an investigation into the conduct I had reported. It attempted to shift the burden on me to justify my position rather than requiring the bank to account for what I had raised.

It didn’t feel right at the time, and now I know why thanks to the Financial Times piece about the CSIS unit shared in Story 162: the investigation was serving a parallel purpose, protecting the bank’s legal position, not investigating misconduct.

Approximately two months before the investigation was formally concluded, Citi’s lawyers communicated to my attorney that my claims had no merit. The investigation remained open during the intervening period. When I asked the investigator what had occurred during those two months, she acknowledged that she had communicated to Citi’s legal team where the investigation was trending while it was still formally ongoing.

They were never going to uncover any wrongdoing. I would have previously advised colleagues to raise concerns through formal channels. Now I see that it is pointless, and actually just risks sharing with Citi details they will use to cover their tracks and build a case against you.