Wells Fargo Sued For Alleged Racist Business Practices at San Antonio Customer Service Center

Case 5:23-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
RAUL GARCIA, PATTY MORA, MIGUEL §

RAMIREZ, & KEVIN HINOJOSA, ON BEHALF §
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS §
SIMILARLY SITUATED §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civ. No. 5:23-cv-825
V. §
§ JURY DEMANDED
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., §
§
Defendant. §
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Raul Garcia, Patty Mora, Miguel Ramirez, and Kevin Hinojosa, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), file this Original Class Action Complaint
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”), and would show as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Wells Fargo has a long history of charging higher fees to Hispanic borrowers or
improperly placing minority customers into subprime loans. In 2012, Wells Fargo agreed to pay
$184.3 million in compensation for Hispanic and Black borrowers who were steered into subprime
mortgages or who paid higher fees and rates than white borrowers because of their race or national
origin. Wells Fargo currently faces a class action lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act and other
civil rights laws brought by minority consumers who received less favorable refinancing options,
following a Bloomberg News report finding that Wells Fargo rejected half its Black applicants
during the mortgage refinancing boom.
2. San Antonio is a center of Wells Fargo’s Bilingual telephonic customer services,
which services Spanish-speaking customers from all over the country and world. Plaintiffs are
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AGAINST WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 1
current and former employees of Wells Fargo, working as Mortgage Consumer Direct Sales
Consultants on the Bilingual team. Every member of the Bilingual team, including Plaintiffs, are
of Hispanic ethnicity and are from Mexico.
3. Wells Fargo forces its employees on the Bilingual team to offer predatory lending
options to Spanish-speaking customers. For example, Wells Fargo has developed an “Earn the
Business” program for the Bilingual team. In the fall of 2022, management created a mandatory
Bilingual team program whereby employees were instructed to offer a “Refinance Cash Out”
product without directly mentioning the substantial financial cost of the product to borrowers.
Management implemented this policy because refinancing generally has high closing costs,
ranging between $5,000 and $10,000. Managers of the Bilingual team directed employees to steer
customers away from Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOC), which carry no closing costs, and
into refinancing without disclosing the closing costs. Team Leader Noel Gomez stressed, “It’s not
about asking, it’s about assuming [the customer wants to cash out].” Wells Fargo provided
Bilingual team members with laminated cards underlining this instruction:
4. The Bilingual members expressed concern about this direction, noting that most of
the customers served by the Bilingual team do not speak English fluently and have lower education
levels. Because Wells Fargo refuses to provide Spanish language written materials, the customers
served by the Bilingual team struggle to understand the terms of the documents they sign.
Customers sometimes call into the Bilingual team months after closing a refinance cash out,
surprised to discover they have been charged substantial closing costs. Nevertheless, management
instructs the Bilingual team, “Don’t mention cash out.” Instead, management instructed employees
to build a rapport with borrowers to gain the customers’ trust.
5. Wells Fargo’s institutional racism and discrimination toward its Hispanic
customers served by the Bilingual team also extends to the employees working on the team. In late
2021, Wells Fargo began a Pilot program whereby its mortgage consultants were guaranteed
commissions regardless of their actual sales. Despite frequent requests, Wells Fargo refused to
allow the Bilingual team (which is composed entirely of Hispanic employees who are from
Mexico) to join the Pilot program. Only members of the English-only team were permitted to join
the Pilot program. Wells Fargo’s policy constituted intentional discrimination against Hispanic
employees from Mexico. Alternatively, Wells Fargo’s policy created a disparate impact for
members of the Bilingual team and caused them significant financial hardship throughout the
length of the Pilot program. Instead of earning guaranteed commissions based on their 2021 job
performance, the Bilingual team received greatly diminished compensation in 2022 and beyond
when the mortgage industry was financially devastated by rising interest rates and other financial
impacts.
6. By refusing to allow members of the Bilingual team, all of whom are Hispanic and
from Mexico, to join the Pilot program, Wells Fargo violated the law by creating a program with
a disproportionately adverse effect on Hispanic members of the Bilingual team who are from
Mexico or other Central and South American countries. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
current and former Bilingual team members who were denied access to the Pilot program.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Raul Garcia is an individual of Hispanic ethnicity from Mexico who joined
the Bilingual team in 2019. Wells Fargo denied him admittance to the Pilot program beginning in
late 2021 due to his membership on the Bilingual team. Plaintiff Garcia brings these claims
individually and as class representative.
8. Plaintiff Patty Mora is an individual of Hispanic ethnicity from Mexico who joined
the Bilingual team in 2020. Wells Fargo denied her admittance to the Pilot program beginning in
late 2021 due to her membership on the Bilingual team. Plaintiff Mora brings these claims
9. Plaintiff Miguel Ramirez is an individual of Hispanic ethnicity from Mexico who
joined the Bilingual team in February 2021. Wells Fargo denied him admittance to the Pilot
program beginning in late 2021 due to his membership on the Bilingual team. Plaintiff Ramirez
brings these claims individually and as class representative.
10. Plaintiff Kevin Hinojosa is an individual of Hispanic ethnicity from Mexico who
joined the Bilingual team in September 2021. Wells Fargo denied him admittance to the Pilot
program beginning in late 2021 due to his membership on the Bilingual team. Hinojosa did not
receive a Spanish-language differential for much of his employment with Wells Fargo despite
being entitled to one as a member of the Bilingual team. Plaintiff Hinojosa brings these claims
11. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a corporation doing business in Texas that
can be served through its registered agent for service of process, CORPORATION SERVICE
COMPANY, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX, 78701-3218, USA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This case is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and
42 U.S.C. § 1981.
13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and
42 U.S.C. § 1981.
14. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District. Specifically, Plaintiffs
worked at Wells Fargo office located at 4101 Wiseman Boulevard, San Antonio, Texas 78251 (the
“Wiseman Campus”).
EXHAUSTION
15. Plaintiffs Garcia and Mora filed their Charges of Discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission on October 27, 2022.
16. Plaintiff Ramirez filed his Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission on March 29, 2023.
17. Plaintiff Hinojosa filed his Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission on March 29, 2023.
18. Other members of the Bilingual team who are similarly situated to Ramirez and
Hinojosa filed their Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission between October 27, 2022 and the present.
19. In total, at least eleven members of the Bilingual team have filed Charges of
Discrimination.
20. All Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission were timely filed.
21. The EEOC issued its Determination and Notice of Rights to Ramirez and Hinojosa
on April 5, 2023. The EEOC issued its Determination and Notice of Rights to Garcia on June 28,
2023 and to Mora on June 29, 2023. This lawsuit is timely filed.
22. To date, the EEOC has not issued its Determination and Notice of Rights for any
other members of the Bilingual team.
23. All members of the Bilingual team who were not permitted to join the Pilot program
and are of Hispanic national origin and race are permitted to join this lawsuit, whether or not they
have individually exhausted their claims. All members are similarly situated. All Charges provided
some notice of the collective or class-wide nature of the Charges. Price v. Choctaw Glove & Safety
Co., 459 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 2006).
FACTS
24. Wells Fargo employs a team of Mortgage Consumer Direct Sales Consultants at
the Wiseman Campus.
25. The organization was split into two groups: the Virtual to Consumer (“English
team”) team and the Bilingual team. The English team and the Bilingual team had similar roles
and were similarly qualified, but employees on the Bilingual team are specifically hired to take
Spanish-language calls.
26. Compensation for employees on the Bilingual team is supposed to reflect their
alignment to Spanish-language calls: members of the Bilingual team are meant to be paid a 5%
language differential, they earned more in commissions per loan closed, and they had favorable
productivity standards as compared to the English team. However, some members of the Bilingual
team, including but not limited to Kevin Hinojosa, were regularly denied language differential pay.
27. According to Wells Fargo, its mortgage organization has two groups: the servicing
group and the origination group. The servicing group handled customer calls about escrows, payoff
requests, or anything servicing related, and the origination group handled new loans, customers
calling the 800 number and online customers inquiries. According to Wells Fargo, the English and
Bilingual teams were both part of the origination group.
28. In or about end of year of 2021, Wells Fargo rolled out a pilot program in San
Antonio that created a hybrid service group (“Pilot”). Wells Fargo has stated that the “purpose of
the Pilot was to combine the servicing and origination functions to identify Wells Fargo customers
that might be in a position to refinance an existing mortgage when they call in to service their
account and provide them with options within Wells Fargo to retain business that might otherwise
go to a different institution. The current Wells Fargo model divided the servicing of current loans
and the origination of new loans with different departments; therefore, a customer would have to
be transferred to a separate department to refinance an existing loan. The Pilot meant to conflate
these tasks into one call, with one consultant, and make it more efficient for Wells Fargo to retain
a customer’s business.”
29. According to Wells Fargo, “The compensation model for the employees
participating in the Pilot was adjusted from commission-based model to a ‘guarantee’ because, as
participants in the Pilot, employees would have to forego the opportunity to make commissions
during the additional weeks of training that the Pilot would require, and the Pilot was a new
initiative without any available data to develop an accurate assessment of the number of
commissions that Pilot employees could expect. Therefore, Pilot employees were provided a
‘guarantee’ based in part on their historical performance from a 3-month period (September-
November 2021) to offset the reduced commission opportunities.”
30. Wells Fargo acknowledges that it made a firm and universal policy decision to
permit only members of the English team to join the Pilot program.
31. Wells Fargo informed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, without
any documentary support, that it made this policy decision because “staffing for the pilot program
was based on call volume for retention services, and there was very little Spanish-language call
volume in that regard” and “there was a business need to keep the Bilingual team in their queue to
service the Spanish-speaking customers.”
32. This allegation defies credulity. Spanish-speaking mortgage holders are more
likely, not less likely, to call into the bank because Wells Fargo refuses to provide its mortgage
documents in Spanish. Spanish-speaking customers are therefore significantly more reliant on
telephone conversations with members of the Bilingual team, who must explain in Spanish the
underlying documents which are written in only English to consumers who cannot read
complicated legal documentation in their native language.
33. Based on information and belief, a thorough review of Wells Fargo calls received
would reveal that Spanish-speakers called in, at least, similar volumes to English-speakers and that
Spanish-speaking customers would have similarly benefited from the Pilot program opportunities.
34. There is no job-related reason that is consistent with business necessity to deny
members of the Bilingual team access to the Pilot program. The Bilingual team members are
qualified to perform all the tasks of members of the Pilot program. Spanish-speaking customers
would have benefited from the goals of the Pilot program in the same way the English-speaking
customers did. If Spanish-speaking customers were diverted to the Pilot program at the same rate
as English-speaking customers, members of the Bilingual team could have joined the Pilot
program at the same rate as members of the English team.
35. Wells Fargo also claims that its Pilot program is non-discriminatory because it was
created by Hispanics. This is not the relevant inquiry, and ignores Supreme Court precedent. See
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1997) (“Because of the many facets of
human motivation, it would be unwise to presume as a matter of law that human beings of one
definable group will not discriminate against other members of that group.”).
36. Wells Fargo also claims that its Pilot program is non-discriminatory because the
English group includes Hispanics. Again, this is not the relevant inquiry, and ignores Supreme
Court precedent. See Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753 (2020) (“The consequences
of the law’s focus on individuals rather than groups are anything but academic. . . . It’s no defense
for the employer to note that, while he treated that individual woman worse than he would have
treated a man, he gives preferential treatment to female employees overall.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs
assert both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims. In a disparate impact claim, the
relevant group is the individuals denied entry into the Pilot program, all of whom are Hispanic and
are from Mexico or other Central and South American countries. A disparate-impact claim targets
employer practices that “have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities.” Ricci v.
DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 577 (2009). In other words, if a facially neutral policy “in fact fall[s]
more harshly on one group,” that is unlawful disparate impact. Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex.,
97 F.3d 810, 813 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324,
335 n.15 (1977)). Simply because some members of the English group happen to also be Hispanic
is not the end of inquiry and does not invalidate a disparate impact or a disparate treatment claim.
37. Wells Fargo’s own internal policies make clear that many Spanish-only speakers
call in for mortgage and/or retention services. The Bilingual team supervisor provides each team
member with a laminated policy handout intended to target Spanish speakers for predatory services
when they call in with servicing requests. This handout instructs the Bilingual team to “[a]ssume
the transaction will be cash out DO NOT ask if they want cash out,” and “DO NOT discuss rate
until the customer understands the benefits we can provide.” These policies make Wells Fargo
more money because, when the customer takes cash out when refinancing, Wells Fargo makes
more money, which necessarily reduces the customers’ equity.
38. Not only does this policy target Spanish-speaking customers for disadvantageous
refinancing terms, but it undermines Wells Fargo’s claim that “there was very little Spanish-
language call volume” for refinancing and retention services. Why would an enormous institution
like Wells Fargo provide laminated policies targeting Spanish-speakers if they rarely called in?
39. When Plaintiffs expressed concern that these practices were targeting Spanish-
speaking and Hispanic customers, relying on customers’ inability to read lengthy legal documents
in their first language to trap them in financially detrimental programs, Wells Fargo brushed these
concerns off and doubled down on instructions to obfuscate the downsides of refinancing: “It’s
not about asking, it’s about assuming.”
40. Denying the Bilingual team, including Plaintiffs, the opportunity to join the Pilot
program caused significant financial hardship. The mortgage industry, and Wells Fargo in
particular, suffered significant losses in 2022.
41. According to news reports, in 2021, Wells Fargo originated 376,000 loans — the
fourth-biggest number nationally — for a total amount of $159 billion. However, 2022 proved a
difficult year for the mortgage industry as a whole as interest rates soared. For example, Wells
Fargo originated $14.6 billion in mortgages from October to December 2022, down 32% quarter-
over-quarter and 70% year-over-year. Refinancings fell to 13% of the portfolio in Q4 2022,
compared to 59% in Q4 2021. Wells Fargo’s total originations declined 47% in 2022.
42. These disastrous mortgage results devastated Plaintiffs’ income in 2022 and
beyond. The Bilingual team, including Plaintiffs, are paid mostly on commission, and when the
mortgage industry crashed, so did their compensation. If Plaintiffs and the Bilingual team as a
whole had been permitted to join the Pilot program in equal numbers to the English team, however,
they would have received guaranteed commissions based on their Q4 2021 performance,
substantially increasing their wages for all of 2022 and beyond.
43. Wells Fargo laid off some members of the English-only team in February 2023
“due to market conditions”—leading to Wells Fargo’s eyebrow-raising claim that exclusion from
the pilot program actually “benefitted” the Bilingual team members. It is important to note what
these “market conditions” were: an enormous increase in the mortgage interest rate that led to a
substantial decrease in the commissions the Bilingual team members earned over a long period of
time. The Bilingual team members earned substantially less than the pilot program members for
over a year because, quite simply, fewer consumers were buying homes when faced with such
unfavorable mortgage rates.
44. It is ironic that Wells Fargo thinks the Bilingual team members should be grateful
to still have their jobs when the earnings associated with these jobs has decreased substantially—
which, critically, did not happen to the Pilot program members because their commissions were
guaranteed.
45. In short, Wells Fargo admits that it created a policy whereby Bilingual team
members were not permitted to join the Pilot program. This policy intentionally discriminates
again Hispanic employees, and employees from Mexico. Alternatively, because all of the Bilingual
team members, including Plaintiffs, are Hispanic and from Mexico, this policy disproportionately
impacts Wells Fargo Bilingual team members based on their national origin and race.
46. When Bilingual team members expressed concerns that they were being
discriminated against because of their national origin and race, Wells Fargo management
suggested they overlook the past and accept that the opportunities given to the English teams were
never meant for the Bilingual team.
47. Wells Fargo cannot show that the policy is job related and consistent with business
necessity, and therefore the policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
48. Plaintiffs can show there is an alternative way to serve the stated needs that has less
disparate impact on Hispanics, but Wells Fargo refused to implement it, and therefore the policy
violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As one example, if Wells Fargo recognized that many
Spanish-only customers call in for mortgage and/or retention services, it would have seen the value
in having Bilingual employees in the Pilot program to speak to these customers. By disregarding
the needs of its Spanish-only customers, Wells Fargo created a Pilot program that it falsely claims
needed no Bilingual team members.
49. The disparity between the English team and the Bilingual team is clear: by the end
of December 2022, English-language team members closed on average 80 loans due to the
programmatic opportunities created for them, while Bilingual team members were given the
opportunity to close only eight.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
50. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
51. Class Definition: Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class initially defined as: “All members
of Wells Fargo’s Bilingual team of Hispanic ethnicity or from Mexico or other Central and South
American countries employed by Wells Fargo during its Pilot program for Mortgage Consumer
Direct Sales Consultants, beginning in or around December 2021 to the present who were not
permitted to participate in the Pilot program.”
52. Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the numerosity, adequacy, commonality, typicality,
predominance, and superiority requirements of a class action.
53. Numerosity and Class Size: The class contains more than twenty current and
former Bilingual team members, and joinder is therefore impracticable. The precise number of
class members and their addresses are readily determinable from the books and records of
Defendant.
54. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are affected employees who are or were members of the
Bilingual team. They are of Hispanic ethnicity and are from Mexico or other Central and South
American countries and are or were employed by Wells Fargo during its Pilot program for
Mortgage Consumer Direct Sales Consultants. They are thereby members of the class. Plaintiffs
are committed to pursuing this action and have retained counsel with experience prosecuting
complex employment litigation, including violations of Title VII. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are
adequate representatives of the class and have the same interests as all of the members. Plaintiffs
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the absent members of the class.
55. Common Questions of Law and Fact: There are questions of fact and law that are
common to the class and predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.
The questions of law and fact common to the class arising from Defendant’s actions include,
without limitation, the following:
a. Whether Wells Fargo created a Pilot program guaranteeing commissions to
members of the program that excluded members of the Bilingual Team.
b. Whether Wells Fargo’s Pilot program intentionally discriminates against Hispanic
employees and/or employees from Mexico or other Central and South American
countries.
c. Whether the Pilot program is a specific, facially neutral policy or practice of Wells
Fargo.
d. Whether the Pilot program caused a disproportionately adverse effect on the
Bilingual Team, all of whom are of Hispanic ethnicity and are from Mexico or other
Central and South American countries. By denying Plaintiffs a guaranteed
commission that was offered to English team members, Plaintiffs received
significantly less pay in 2022 and beyond;
e. Whether Wells Fargo has implemented a Pilot program with significant financial
benefits to which it admits the Bilingual team cannot gain entry, excluding the
Bilingual team from the Pilot program has “a causal connection to a class based
imbalance . . . .”;
f. Whether Wells Fargo can show that barring Bilingual team members from the Pilot
program was job related or consistent with business necessary;
g. Whether Plaintiffs can show that Wells Fargo’s business needs could have been
served by permitting Bilingual team members to join the Pilot program in equal
proportions to English team members, but Wells Fargo refused it;
h. Whether because Wells Fargo implemented a policy excluding members of the
Bilingual team, including Plaintiffs, from joining the Pilot program, Plaintiffs
suffered lost income and other economic and non-economic damages and the
appropriate calculations of those damages;
i. The appropriate punitive damages due.
56. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of all members of the class.
Plaintiffs are current or former members of the Bilingual team who are of Hispanic ethnicity who
are from Mexico or other Central and South American countries and were ineligible to join the
Pilot program and thereby receive guaranteed commissions.
57. Nature of the Proposed Notice: Plaintiffs propose that, should the Court certify
the class, notice be sent to class members via first class mail and email. The names and contact
information of class members are readily determinable from the books and records of Defendant.
58. Rule 23(b) Requirements: The common questions set forth above predominate over
any questions affecting only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to
considerations of consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of the Title VII disparate impact claims.
59. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.
The presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent
and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and/or
substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.
60. Further, class action treatment of this action is authorized and appropriate under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations made in the preceding
paragraphs.
62. The Supreme Court has had “little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to
protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional
discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Such discrimination is
racial discrimination that Congress intended § 1981 to forbid, whether or not it would be classified
as racial in terms of modern scientific theory.” Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604,
613 (1987).
63. “Clearly, discrimination on the basis of a complainant’s Hispanic ethnicity is
actionable under § 1981.” Loco Brands, LLC v. Butler Am., LLC, No. 6:18-CV-69-JDK-KNM,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57173, at *11 (E.D. Tex. 2020); see also Vill. of Freeport v. Barrella, 814
F.3d 594, 598 (2d Cir. 2016) (“‘race” includes ethnicity for purposes of § 1981, so that
discrimination based on Hispanic ancestry or lack thereof constitutes racial discrimination under
that statute.); Drawsand v. Palletized Trucking, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40819, 2019 WL
825847 at * 2 (S.D. Tex., January 24, 2019) (“Section 1981 . . . applies to discrimination on the
basis of race or ethnicity.”); Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
40082, 2018 WL 1308221 at * 8 (E.D. Texas, February 15, 2018) (“Thus, while discrimination
purely on the basis of national origin does not create a cause of action under § 1981, the Fifth
Circuit has held that a complaint by Mexican-Americans alleging racial and ethnic discrimination
‘clearly states a cause of action’ under the statute.”) (quoting Alvarado v. El Paso Indep. School
Dist., 445 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1971)).
64. Plaintiffs are Hispanic. Therefore, they are members of a class protected by Section
1981.
65. Plaintiffs were qualified both for their positions and for the job duties required for
the Pilot program.
66. Plaintiffs were subject to an adverse employment action whereby they were refused
entry into the Pilot program and denied substantial commissions that would have been guaranteed
under the Pilot program.
67. Plaintiffs were treated less favorably than members of the English team based on
their race.
68. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered lost income and other economic and non-economic
damages.
paragraphs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

National Origin and Race Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:
Disparate Treatment
paragraphs.
71. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to “limit, segregate, or classify his
employees or applicants . . . in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities . . . because of such individual’s . . . race . . . or national origin.” 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
72. Race and national origin claims are closely intertwined and correlated. Plaintiffs’
national origin is Mexican and other South and Central American counties, and their race and
ethnicity is Hispanic. See generally Jatoi v. Hurst-Euless-Bedford Hosp. Auth., 807 F.2d 1214,
1218 (5th Cir. 1987) (“We have recognized the difficulty in distinguishing discrimination based
on national origin from that based on race.”); see also Vill. of Freeport v. Barrella, 814 F.3d 594,
598 (2d Cir. 2016) (“‘race” includes ethnicity for purposes of § 1981, so that discrimination based
on Hispanic ancestry or lack thereof constitutes racial discrimination under that statute. We also
hold that ‘race’ should be defined the same way for purposes of Title VII.”); Alonzo v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, N.A., 25 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Whether being Hispanic
constitutes a race or a national origin category is a semantic distinction with historical implications
not worthy of consideration here.”).
73. Plaintiffs are Hispanic who are from Mexico. Therefore, they are members of at
least two protected classes: race (Hispanic) and national origin (from Mexico or other Central and
South American countries).
74. Plaintiffs were qualified both for their positions and for the job duties required for
the Pilot program.
75. Plaintiffs were subject to an adverse employment action whereby they were refused
entry into the Pilot program and denied substantial commissions that would have been guaranteed
under the Pilot program.
76. Plaintiffs were treated less favorably than members of the English team based on
their race and/or national origin.
77. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered lost income and other economic and non-economic
damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

National Origin and Race Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:
Disparate Impact
78. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to “limit, segregate, or classify his
employees or applicants . . . in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities . . . because of such individual’s . . . race . . . or national origin.” 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
79. Race and national origin claims are closely intertwined and correlated. Plaintiffs’
national origin is Mexican and other South and Central American counties, and their race/ethnicity
is Hispanic; both are plainly protected. See generally Jatoi v. Hurst-Euless-Bedford Hosp. Auth.,
807 F.2d 1214, 1218 (5th Cir. 1987) (“We have recognized the difficulty in distinguishing
discrimination based on national origin from that based on race.”); see also Alonzo v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, N.A., 25 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Whether being Hispanic
constitutes a race or a national origin category is a semantic distinction with historical implications
not worthy of consideration here.”).
80. Furthermore, the statute provides that an unlawful employment practice based on
disparate impact is established when either an employee shows that an employment policy causes
such a disparate impact and the employer fails to show “that the challenged practice is job related
. . . . and consistent with business necessity,” or the employee shows there is an alternative way to
serve the stated needs but the employer refuses it. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A).
81. Wells Fargo created a Pilot program guaranteeing commissions to members of the
program. This Pilot program is a specific, facially neutral policy or practice of Wells Fargo.
82. The Pilot program caused a disproportionately adverse effect on the Bilingual
Team, including Plaintiffs, all of whom are of Hispanic national origin and race. By denying
Plaintiffs a guaranteed commission that was offered to English team members, Plaintiffs received
significantly less pay in 2022 and beyond.
83. Because Wells Fargo has implemented a Pilot program with significant financial
benefits to which it admits the Bilingual team cannot gain entry, excluding the Bilingual team from
the Pilot program has “a causal connection to a class based imbalance . . . .” Anderson v. Douglas
& Lomason Co., Inc., 26 F.3d 1277, 1284 (5th Cir. 1994).
84. Wells Fargo cannot show that the barring Bilingual team members from the Pilot
program was job related or consistent with business necessary.
85. Plaintiffs can show that Wells Fargo’s business needs could have been served by
permitting Bilingual team members to join the Pilot program in equal proportions to the English
team members, but Wells Fargo refused it.
86. Because Wells Fargo implemented a policy excluding members of the Bilingual
team, including Plaintiffs, from joining the Pilot program, Plaintiffs suffered lost income and other
economic and non-economic damages.
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
87. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under Title VII.
JURY DEMAND
88. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a
trial by jury on all issues.
PRAYER
89. For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask for judgment against Defendant for the following:
a. Actual, consequential, and compensatory damages;
b. Exemplary and punitive damages;
c. Pre-judgment interest if, as, and when allowed by law;
d. Reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees;
e. Costs of court;
f. Post-judgment interest; and
g. Any other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled, whether in law or equity
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lawrence Morales II

Lawrence Morales II
State Bar No. 24051077
lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
Allison Sarah Hartry
State Bar No. 24083149
ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
San Antonio, Texas 78201
Telephone: (210) 225-0811
Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL
Case 5:23-cv-00825 COVER
Document 1-1 SHEET
Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Raul Garcia, Patty Mora, Miguel Ramirez, and Kevin Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Hinojosa, on behalf of selves and all others similarly sit.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Bexar County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
The Morales Firm, 6243 Interstate 10 West, Suite 132
San Antonio, TX 78201 (210) 225-0811
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ✖ 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Wells Fargo excluded Bilingual team members, all Hispanic, from luncrative Pilot program
VII. REQUESTED IN ✖ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
June 30, 2023
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20) Case 5:23-cv-00825 Document 1-1 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Wells Fargo Sued For Alleged Racist Business Practices at San Antonio Customer Service Center

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wells Fargo Sued For Alleged Racist Business Practices at San Antonio Customer Service Center

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:23-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RAUL GARCIA, PATTY MORA, MIGUEL §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

during the mortgage refinancing boom.

2. San Antonio is a center of Wells Fargo’s Bilingual telephonic customer services,

of Hispanic ethnicity and are from Mexico.

Bilingual team members with laminated cards underlining this instruction:

to build a rapport with borrowers to gain the customers’ trust.

5. Wells Fargo’s institutional racism and discrimination toward its Hispanic

individually and as class representative.

individually and as class representative.

9. Plaintiff Miguel Ramirez is an individual of Hispanic ethnicity from Mexico who

brings these claims individually and as class representative.

individually and as class representative.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Employment Opportunity Commission on October 27, 2022.

Opportunity Commission on March 29, 2023.

Opportunity Commission on March 29, 2023.

Commission between October 27, 2022 and the present.

20. All Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission were timely filed.

other members of the Bilingual team.

Co., 459 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 2006).

the Wiseman Campus.

Bilingual teams were both part of the origination group.

November 2021) to offset the reduced commission opportunities.”

service the Spanish-speaking customers.”

documents in Spanish. Spanish-speaking customers are therefore significantly more reliant on

complicated legal documentation in their native language.

program at the same rate as members of the English team.

employer practices that “have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities.” Ricci v.

more money, which necessarily reduces the customers’ equity.

not about asking, it’s about assuming.”

particular, suffered significant losses in 2022.

substantially increasing their wages for all of 2022 and beyond.

unfavorable mortgage rates.

never meant for the Bilingual team.

needed no Bilingual team members.

opportunity to close only eight.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

23 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

permitted to participate in the Pilot program.”

52. Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the numerosity, adequacy, commonality, typicality,

predominance, and superiority requirements of a class action.

without limitation, the following:

a. Whether Wells Fargo created a Pilot program guaranteeing commissions to

members of the program that excluded members of the Bilingual Team.

b. Whether Wells Fargo’s Pilot program intentionally discriminates against Hispanic

d. Whether the Pilot program caused a disproportionately adverse effect on the

Central and South American countries. By denying Plaintiffs a guaranteed

commission that was offered to English team members, Plaintiffs received

significantly less pay in 2022 and beyond;

program was job related or consistent with business necessary;

proportions to English team members, but Wells Fargo refused it;

h. Whether because Wells Fargo implemented a policy excluding members of the

appropriate calculations of those damages;

i. The appropriate punitive damages due.

Pilot program and thereby receive guaranteed commissions.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Such discrimination is

63. “Clearly, discrimination on the basis of a complainant’s Hispanic ethnicity is