Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank
802 F.3d 409
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Carmen Segarra was hired by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) as a Senior Bank Examiner to examine Goldman Sachs’s Legal and Compliance division, focusing on its conflict-of-interest policy.
- Segarra alleges Goldman Sachs lacked a firm-wide conflict-of-interest policy and that FRBNY employees (Silva, Koh, Kim) impeded her examination and pressured her to change findings.
- Segarra reported her findings to FRBNY’s Legal and Compliance Risk Team; she was terminated by FRBNY on May 23, 2012.
- She sued FRBNY and the three individual employees under the banking agency whistleblower statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(2).
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding the individual defendants were not liable under § 1831j(a)(2); the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual FRBNY employees (Silva, Koh, Kim) are "a person who is performing, directly or indirectly, any function or service on behalf of the FDIC" under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(2) | Segarra argued the individuals indirectly performed services for the FDIC (or otherwise fell within the statute) — e.g., by sharing concern that Goldman Sachs’s defects could harm depositors and thus implicate the FDIC | Defendants argued the statutory text reaches only those performing functions/services for the FDIC (including FDIC contractors); Segarra did not plausibly allege any actual link or that they were FDIC contractors | The court held Segarra’s allegations were too speculative; the individuals are not shown to be performing services on behalf of the FDIC and thus are not covered by § 1831j(a)(2); judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard for federal claims)
- Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 970 F.2d 378 (7th Cir.) (describing breadth of whistleblower protections)
- Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.) (discussion of "on behalf of" phrase linking persons and entities)