Google News FNMA/FMCC
Mike SP
Mike SP
Mike SP
Mike SP
A pair of court documents filed over the past week present arguments for and against the dismissal of an employment discrimination complaint leveled against Fannie Mae by former employees who were fired in April for alleged fraudulent activity related to the company’s charitable giving program.
Initially filed in July by 65 former Fannie workers, the lawsuit has been pared down to 44 plaintiffs, each of whom are U.S. citizens of Indian national origin, and most of whom are over the age of 50. They deny any wrongdoing and allege they were discriminated against based on their national origin and age.
On Sept. 23, attorneys for Fannie Mae filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs are bound by arbitration agreements that preclude litigation.
The crux of the defendants’ argument is a Jan. 21, 2015, email sent by Fannie Mae’s chief of human resources, advising employees of updates to the company’s arbitration program that went into effect in April of that year.
The plaintiffs claim they were given no option to negotiate or opt out of the arbitration agreement, and that the email only required them to acknowledge they had received it.
An exhibit shows the plaintiffs were also provided a questionnaire that stated, “I understand that the Mutual Arbitration Agreement will apply to me if I continue to work at Fannie Mae and am employed by Fannie Mae on April 6, 2015.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that “the question purportedly propounded appears to have elicited a reply that the individual ‘understands’ that the Agreement applies to them and not that the individual has accepted that offer.”
Attorneys for Fannie Mae, in a response filed Wednesday, claim that “all the evidence indicates the Plaintiffs intended to be bound by the Agreement and understood that they would be,” and “it is simply not true that Plaintiffs had no options upon receipt of the Agreement.”
The defendants’ reply continued: “Most obviously, Plaintiffs could have chosen NOT to answer the questionnaire. They could have contacted someone at Fannie Mae to raise concerns or questions. They could have asked what would happen if they did not answer the questionnaire. They could have used the three months between notification and the effective date to obtain alternative employment.”
It will be up to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss to decide whether to dismiss the case and compel arbitration or proceed with the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial.