Welcome to Wells

or Register to post new content in the forum



  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jan 7, 2009 5:23 pm

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Daniel Fisher has filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California to enforce a U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) order requiring Wells Fargo to reinstate him to his former position at Wells Fargo's Cupertino branch.  After conducting a thorough investigation of Mr. Fisher's Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claim, OSHA issued its findings on November 26, 2008, concluding that Wells Fargo violated Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by retaliating against Fisher because he disclosed that his co-worker was steering customers from CDs and savings accounts to unsuitable mutual funds.  In addition, OSHA ordered Wells Fargo to reinstate Fisher, pay him compensatory damages, and post a notice to employees in a conspicuous place committing not to engage in further retaliation.

   Wells Fargo is refusing to comply with the order and therefore Fisher is bringing a lawsuit in federal court to enforce the order of reinstatement.  Fisher's SOX case is pending in the Office of Administrative Law Judges at the United States Department of Labor.
   "In light of recent scandals in the financial services industry, Wells Fargo's retaliation against Fisher is especially troubling because he was trying to protect customers who were being steered to unsuitable investments by a financial advisor eager to generate fees.  Instead of commending Mr. Fisher's efforts to protect Wells Fargo customers, Wells Fargo punished him and launched a smear campaign against him, thereby damaging his relationships with customers and his reputation," said Fisher's Counsel Scott Oswald and Jason Zuckerman of The Employment Law Group law firm in Washington, D.C.  "We commend Mr. Fisher's courageous whistleblowing and look forward to a trial in this matter to obtain all remedies available to compensate Mr. Fisher for the substantial damages he has suffered."

Y'all have fun now . . .

Jan 7, 2009 5:50 pm

this happens to every large company, I don’t think you can make a blanket inference.  Who knows what the other side of the story is.

Jan 7, 2009 5:52 pm

Fisher is a homo. 

Jan 7, 2009 6:39 pm

[quote=shredder]this happens to every large company, I don’t think you can make a blanket inference.  Who knows what the other side of the story is. [/quote]

It does. That’s true. It’s the timing I find ironic. (Yay - we don’t have to put up with the tainted WS name anymore . . . oops. - They should make it simple go back to the AGE name). As for who knows the other side of the story - I’m guessing OSHA  - who issued the order in his favor.

Jan 7, 2009 9:02 pm

Guess we now know who the co-worker of Fisher was. 

Jan 7, 2009 9:19 pm

What’s the opposite of disgruntled?  Is it gruntled?  I guess I’m gruntled.

Jan 8, 2009 5:46 am

If people do things right, the rat has nothing and is powerless.  Every office has someone itching to be a rat, waiting to sink in his teeth.  The problem is, ethics are slipping away as brokers get desperate to get the gross as the economy struggles along.

Jan 8, 2009 7:36 pm

I would rat out a cheater in a second. If you let that get by you’re in the same boat. Just think if all the cheats in the last five years has been outed and our industry has trult been self policed … do you think the events of the last six months would have played out the same way? I dont look at it as being a rat I think of it as a responsibility. Ir’s been a long time since I was in high school and held on to the “rat” notion.

  Just my very humble opinion.
Jan 8, 2009 8:10 pm

Didn’t Madoff’s own sons “rat” him out?    Twice?