COMPLAINT | SEGARRA v THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK - Because Carmen refused to change her findings, Defendants terminated her

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

COMPLAINT | SEGARRA v THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK – Because Carmen refused to change her findings, Defendants terminated her

COMPLAINT | SEGARRA v THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK – Because Carmen refused to change her findings, Defendants terminated her

courtesy of Propublica

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARMEN M. SEGARRA,

Plaintiff,

V.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of
NEW YORK; MICHAEL SILVA;
MICHAEL KOH; and JOHNATHON
KIM,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Carmen M. Segarra (hereinafter “Carmen” or “Carmen Segarra”), by and
through her attorney, Linda . Stengle, Esq., brings this action against Defendants Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, Michael Silva, Michael Koh, and Johnathon Kim

(hereinafter “Defendants”). Plaintiff Carmen Segarra alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of Defendants’ violations of 12 U.S.C. 183] and other
laws prohibiting obstruction and interference with a bank examiner’s examination
and retaliation for her preliminary examination findings.

2. On October 31, 2011, Carmen Segarra accepted full time employment offered to
her by Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Carmen’s title was Senior
Bank Examiner, and she was assigned to examine the Legal and Compliance
divisions of the Goldman Sachs Group (hereinafter “Goldman” or “Goldman
Sachs”).

Through their misconduct, Defendants repeatedly obstructed and interfered with
Carmen’s examination of Goldman over several months. Finally, in May 2012,
Defendants directed Carmen to change the findings of her examination. Carmen
refused. Because Carmen refused to change her findings, Defendants terminated
her three business days later, on May 23, 2012.

In addition, Defendants improperly caused Carmen Segarra reputational and
professional harm by firing her for cause. Specifically, they fired her because
they suddenly, after months receiving evidence, changed their position and said
Carmen’s finding that Goldman Sachs had no conflict of interest policy in
compliance with SR 08-08 was not credible.

Defendants caused Carmen Segarra’s career in banking to be irreparably
damaged.

Plaintiff Carmen Segarra seeks reinstatement to her position as Senior Bank
Examiner, back pay, compensation for lost benefits, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, in an amount
determined by the Court, to redress Defendants’ illegal and improper conduct.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

FULL COMPLAINT w/ EMAILS

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8711 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives