OPINION & ORDER This suit concerns pro se Plaintiff Zubair Shaik’s allegations that his former employer, the National Bank of Pakistan (“NBP”), terminated him because he disclosed alleged violations of sanctions law by NBP to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). Now, following the close of discovery, during which Shaikh was assisted in taking depositions by counsel, NBP moves for summary judgment. NBP claims that the evidence shared during discovery establishes that it decided to terminate Shaikh before his report to OFAC, and therefore that it could not have terminated him because of his report, as is necessary to fall within the preview of the whistleblower protections of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), the one cause of action alleged in this action. For the reasons stated below, NBP’s motion is GRANTED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 A. Shaikh’s Employment at NBP NBP is a commercial bank predominantly owned by the state of Pakistan that operates a number of international branches, including one in New York City. (Doc. 64 1; Doc. 72 1.) Shaikh began working in NBP’s New York branch (NBP-NY) in 2006, initially in the Trade Finance Department. (Doc. 64 3; Doc. 72 3.) In 2010, Shaikh began working in the PakRemit Department, a department involved in processing remittances sent from customers in the United States to Pakistan.2 (Doc. 64 4; Doc. 72 4.) Shaikh was the only employee working in the PakRemit Department. (Doc. 64 5; Doc. 72 5.) In January 2016, NBP decided to close the PakRemit Department effective March 31, 2016.3 (Doc. 64 13.) NBP gave PakRemit customers 30 days after the closure to contact NBP regarding customer service issues.4 (Doc. 64 14.) NBP witnesses testified that as a result of PakRemit’s closure, Shaikh’s role in PakRemit was eliminated. (Doc. 65 15.) Shaikh had previously fulfilled back-up responsibilities in the Payments and Receipts (“P&R”) Department on occasion, for example when a full-time P&R employee was on vacation. (Doc. 64 16; Doc. 66-4 at 97 at 20-25.) According to NBP, NBP-NY management considered moving Shaikh into the P&R Department upon PakRemit’s closure. (Doc. 64 16.) Shaikh disputes these assertions, saying he was transferred out of the PakRemit Department, as well as the Trade Finance Department, on March 25, 2016, a few days before PakRemit closed. (Doc. 72 15; Doc. 66-4 at 93:6-20.) The Court notes, however, that on April 29, 2016, Shaikh said in an email to Usman Aziz, NBP’s Head of Human Resources for offices in the United States and Canada, that, as of the date of the email, he had “not received any official orders or instructions from the management to work in the P[&]R Department,” and that on his supervisor’s advice, he would continue to “help” the “P[&]R Department.” (Doc. 69 at 109 of 117.) The email also notes that Shaikh had been instructed to act as “backup” to two employees. (Id.) Further, on April 19, 2016, Shaikh sent an email to a customer in which his email signature identified him as working in “PakRemit Customer Service.” (Doc. 66-12 at D000174.) Shaikh’s employment at NBP ended on May 2, 2016, the first working day after the PakRemit wind-down period ended. Sometime after 5:00 p.m. that day, Aziz summoned Shaikh to Aziz’s office, provided him a severance letter, and notified Shaikh that he had been terminated. (Doc. 64 42; Doc. 72 42; Doc. 66-2 at 124:21-24.) The severance letter stated that Shaikh was being terminated because his position became redundant after NBP ended the PakRemit product. (Doc. 69 at 101 of 117.) B. The March 16, 2016 Transaction Shaikh’s claims in this action arise out of events relating to a transaction on March 16, 2016, not long before his employment was terminated. That day, NBP’s P&R Department released a $8,500 payment sent from NBP’s branch in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. (Doc. 64 19; Doc. 72 19.) The payment was routed through NBP-NY and then issued to Deutsche Bank. (Id.) When Deutsche Bank received the payment, it asked NBP-NY to provide additional information about the transaction, and NBP-NY in turn sent a message to the Dushanbe branch asking for this information. (Doc. 64 20; Doc. 72 20.) On March 25, 2016, the Dushanbe branch sent NBP-NY a message saying the payment was for transfer of photocopy paper from Bandar Abbas, an Iranian port. (Doc. 64 21; Doc. 72 21.) That same day, Shaikh came across the message. (Doc. 64 22; Doc. 72 22.) NBP claims Shaikh saw this message while performing back-up duties in the P&R Department; Shaikh says he had been transferred to the P&R Department fulltime on this day. (Id.) In any event, all agree that Shaikh, upon seeing the message’s mention of Iran, reported the transaction internally for OFAC review. (Doc. 64 23; Doc. 72 23.) The message was escalated to Joseph Conway, NBP-NY’s Chief Compliance Officer. (Doc. 64 24; Doc. 72 24.) Conway consulted a “Frequently Asked Questions” resource about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, popularly referred to as the Iran Deal, and determined that the transaction did not need to be reported to OFAC solely because it was transferred through Bandar Abbas.5 (Doc. 64 24; Doc. 66-6 at 115:10-15.) On May 2, 2016 at 10:08 a.m., Shaikh sent an email from his NBP email address to OFAC reporting the transaction. (Doc. 64 41; Doc. 72 41.) The email said that upon learning of the March 16, 2016 transaction’s connection with Iran, NBP-NY sent Deutsche Bank a message saying the transaction had been made “in error,” not mentioning the connection with Iran, and requested that Deutsche Bank return the funds. (Doc. 69 at 115 of 117.) Shaikh wrote that he was bringing the matter to OFAC’s attention because he believed NBP-NY “should have informed [Deutsche Bank] about the Iranian [n]exus” so that Deutsche Bank could, in turn, have informed OFAC. (Id.) Shaikh did not copy any NBP employee on the email, show the email to any NBP employee, or tell any NBP employee that he had sent it. (Doc. 64 41; Doc. 72 41; See also Doc. 66-4 at 211:10-18.) While Shaikh does not provide evidence that any NBP employee was aware of his email to OFAC prior to his termination, indeed NBP deponents testified that they only became aware of the email after Shaikh’s termination, he argues that he “fear[s] [NBP] became aware of my email” because Ahmad, NBP’s COO, had access to employee email messages.6 (Doc. 72 41; Doc. 64 41; see also 66-4 at 212:19-213:3.) Shaikh cites no evidence for why he reported the transaction to OFAC, but argues that he did so “in good faith” and because he believed the transaction to be prohibited, when he “realized that they [were] trying to create trouble for” him, after they had “harassed” him “several times.” (Doc. 72 41.) C. Events in April 2016 While Shaikh does not explain what exactly he means by the “trouble” “they” were creating for him, the Court infers that he may be referring to events that transpired in the period after Shaikh first reported the March 16, 2016 transaction and before his May 2, 2016 email to OFAC. On April 6, 2016, Flor Bello, head of the P&R Department asked Sonja Leung, another P&R employee, to assign cases for Shaikh to review and to remind Shaikh to ensure his reports were properly completed.7 (Doc. 64 26.) Leung and Shaikh spoke that day. (Doc. 64 27; Doc. 72 27.) Bello, who was within earshot, testified that Shaikh yelled at Leung.8 (Doc. 64 27; Doc. 66-3 at 95:22-96:3.) Shaikh concedes that he yelled at Leung, though argues she also yelled at him. (Doc. 66-4 at 203:18-204:12.) He also testified that he told her, “You are not my boss. You are not my supervisor or manager. Please keep quiet.” (Doc. 66-4 189:17-21.) Bello, who overheard the conversation, testified that she intervened and explained that Leung was following Bello’s directions. (Doc. 64 27; Doc. 66-3 at 96:4-11.) Bello testified that after this encounter, she called Ahmad, NBP’s COO and Shaikh’s supervisor, advised him that Ahmad was being disruptive and asked Ahmad to remove Shaikh from the workspace to calm him down. (Doc. 64 28; Doc. 66-3 at 96:19-104:22.) Ahmad, Shaikh, and Bello spoke in Ahmad’s office, and Ahmad told Shaikh that he had acted inappropriately in yelling.9 (Doc. 64 at 29.) One week later, on April 13, 2016, Bello emailed Ahmad about the April 6 incident, stating that the purpose of the email was “to report the unpleasant incident involving Mr. Zubair Shaikh….” (Doc. 64 31; Doc. 66-11 at D00092.) In the email, Bello said that when Shaikh was asked to mention all relevant details in initiating cases, he “reacted angrily,” spoke in “a loud tone,” and told Leung “to keep quite [sic] because she was not his boss.” (Doc. 66-11 at D00092.) The email closed with a request “to please bring these matters to the attention of the Human Resources Department and Higher Management….”) (Id. at D000093.) That same day, Ahmad forwarded the email to Aziz, copying Nasir Qureshi, NBP’s Country Manager for the Americas, and Bello, saying that he was doing so “in accordance with the Bank’s H.R. Policy.” (Id. at D00092.) On April 21, 2016, Aziz forwarded Bello’s April 13, 2016 email to Shaikh. (Doc. 69 at 111 of 117.) The email asked Shaikh to provide an explanation of the incident within seven days “to satisfy the complaint,” and said that “based on [the] explanation, the Bank [would] decide whether or not to initiate disciplinary action against” Shaikh. (Id.) Shaikh responded to the email on April 29, 2016, with a lengthy defense of his actions. (Doc. 69 at 109 of 117-111 of 117.) At his deposition, Ahmad testified that this was not the first time that Shaikh had reacted angrily at being told what to do, and had raised his voice at Ahmad before. (Doc. 66-1 at 87:7-17, 88:10-18.) In March 2015, Ahmad sent Shaikh a letter about an incident in which Shaikh, as alleged in the letter, “raised [his] voice and demanded a salary increase and promotion” when he was asked to fill-in for an employee who was traveling to Pakistan to care for his ailing brother.”10 (Doc. 66-13; Doc. 64 37.) Ahmad testified, in effect, that after the April 6, 2016 incident, he had reached the end of his rope, and determined that, as the NBP-NY’s Chief Operations Officer who “supervise[d] everybody,” he could not work with Shaikh any longer. (Doc. 64
