Fired Compliance Officer Sues MoneyGram Claiming Retaliation for Citing Violations
Lozada claims he was fired after six months on the job after he repeatedly brought up compliance failures that allegedly violated the company's 2012 deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice and a 2009 order by the Federal Trade Commission.
January 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM
4 minute read
Texas lawyer Juan Lozada, a former compliance officer at MoneyGram International Inc. in Dallas, has filed a retaliation and wrongful termination suit against the company.
Lozada claims he was fired after six months on the job after he repeatedly brought up compliance failures that allegedly violated the company's 2012 deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice and a 2009 order by the Federal Trade Commission. That DOJ agreement included criminal charges that MoneyGram knowingly aided and abetted wire fraud and willfully failed to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.
The company's outside counsel, John Barcus, of counsel in the Dallas office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, said, “MoneyGram denies the allegations in the [Lozada] complaint, all of which are false and easily disproven. MoneyGram is confident that it will prevail.”
Barcus said Lozada “worked in MoneyGram's compliance department for less than one year before he was terminated for poor job performance. His termination had nothing to do with the activities he claims to have engaged in.”
Barcus also said Lozada was bringing “the same baseless allegations” in yet another forum.
Lozada first filed a retaliation complaint last March 5 with the U.S. Department of Labor. After a dismissal and an appeal, a hearing on the complaint was scheduled this month before an administrative law judge.
Lozada's attorney, Steve Kardell of Kardell Law Group in Dallas, said he decided to terminate the hearing in favor of filing a suit Jan. 23 in the U.S. District Court in Texarkana alleging the same issues.
Kardell explained that after the original complaint was filed with the Labor Department in March, federal prosecutors on Nov. 8 found that MoneyGram had violated the FTC order and the DPA, just as Lozada had claimed. The DOJ then reached a renewed DPA and the company was ordered to pay a $125 million penalty.
“A lot of things Juan identified to his supervisors and then in his complaint were later cited when prosecutors extended MoneyGram's deferred prosecution agreement and fined the company,” Kardell said.
The lawsuit specifically accuses the money transfer company of violating the retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Kardell explained, “In most such cases, there is an issue of whether the employee had a reasonable belief about what was going on. In this case the government backs up every incident Juan cited.”
The suit also names as defendants Lozada's supervisor, Juan Manuel Gonzales, and Christopher Ponder, head of human resources for the compliance department. Lozada joined MoneyGram in October 2016 as a manager in its compliance unit, and was not a member of its legal department.
Kardell said the DPA, which included the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as a monitor scrutinizing MoneyGram, was close to expiring in mid-2017 when Lozada was complaining about the compliance failures. “The atmosphere was 'don't make any waves,'” Kardell said.
Or, as the lawsuit puts it: The FTC order and the DPA “were hanging like a Sword of Damocles” over MoneyGram at the time.
As a result, Kardell said, the company did not react positively to Lozada's complaints about compliance violations. So Lozada put his complaints in writing to the monitor. Then he was fired.
Lozada told Corporate Counsel, “My six-month experience at MoneyGram was a nightmare, with every one of my suggestions, made in good faith, derided and dismissed, along with attacks on my character. The government's decision to extend the DPA and fine MoneyGram an additional $125 million is some consolation for what I had to go through. I look forward to a final, just resolution of my case.”
The suit accuses the company of “willful violation” of compliance provisions in the government agreements. It seeks back pay for Lozada, reinstatement to his job or pay in lieu of reinstatement, special damages for noneconomic harm such as impairment of reputation, plus attorney fees and costs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
SEC Issues $6.75M Fine Against Financial Firm Led by Trump's Choice to Lead Commerce Dept.
3 minute readAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250