Citigroup Denies Retaliation Claims, Asserts Former Managing Director Was Terminated for Poor Performance

159

Citigroup Rejects Retaliation Allegations, Cites Performance Issues in Former Executive’s Lawsuit

Citigroup is firmly denying allegations made by a former managing director, Kathleen Martin, who filed a lawsuit claiming she was wrongfully terminated for refusing to conceal critical information from regulators. The banking giant responded on Thursday, asserting that Martin’s dismissal was based on performance-related issues, not retaliation for raising concerns about the company’s practices.

Martin, who joined Citigroup in 2021 to address data governance issues, alleges that her termination in September 2023 was the result of her refusal to hide vital information from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). According to her lawsuit, she was asked by her supervisor, Chief Operating Officer Anand Selva, to withhold data-governance metrics that could have cast the bank in a negative light during a crucial regulatory review.

The disputed information relates to a 2020 consent order from the OCC, which required Citigroup to address deficiencies in its risk management, data governance, and internal controls. Martin claims that after she raised concerns about Selva’s request, she was retaliated against and eventually fired.

In its formal response to the lawsuit, Citigroup outlined a different narrative. The bank contends that Martin had already been facing performance challenges well before the incidents she cited in her legal filing. According to Citigroup, Martin assumed the role of interim data transformation chair after replacing her predecessor and mentor, Rob Casper. The bank argues that her performance issues were documented as early as May 2023, months before the alleged misconduct.

The bank’s filing also notes that Martin received a mid-year performance review in July 2023, after which she expressed concerns to human resources that her position might be in jeopardy. Citigroup asserts that Martin did not adequately address the feedback she received, leading to her replacement in the data transformation role.

Citigroup’s efforts to comply with the 2020 consent orders have been under intense scrutiny, especially following a $136 million fine imposed by the OCC for the bank’s failure to make sufficient progress. Martin was part of a team tasked with remedying the deficiencies outlined in those orders, adding further complexity to her claims.

Martin’s attorney, Valdi Licul of Wigdor LLP, responded to Citigroup’s filing by expressing satisfaction that the bank’s response indicated the case has legal merit. Licul stated that he intends to seek depositions from senior Citigroup executives, including CEO Jane Fraser and COO Anand Selva, to demonstrate that Martin’s firing was indeed retaliatory.

“We look forward to conducting the depositions of Ms. Fraser and Mr. Selva to show that they fired Ms. Martin only because she complained about illegal activity,” Licul added.

While Citigroup has declined to comment further beyond its legal filing, the case is poised to draw significant attention as it progresses, particularly given the involvement of high-ranking executives and the ongoing regulatory pressures facing the bank. As both sides prepare for what could be a protracted legal battle, the outcome may have broader implications for corporate governance and the handling of whistleblower claims within major financial institutions.