Former Wells Fargo Executive Claims Discrimination and Retaliation Forced Early Retirement

A former Wells Fargo senior vice president is suing the bank in federal court, claiming discrimination and retaliation tied to his age, disability, sexual orientation, and advocacy for Black colleagues forced him into early retirement after nearly four decades with Wells Fargo and its predecessor banks.

Robert Propst filed the lawsuit Aug. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case centers on his treatment following a management change and his August 2023 departure from the bank.

Propst began working for First Union in 1985 and remained through its transition to Wachovia and later Wells Fargo. He eventually became a senior vice president and in 2017 was chosen to lead the bank's Rebuilding Trust Office, a group formed after Wells Fargo's sales practices scandal.

According to the complaint, problems began after Propst and his team were placed under a new supervisor in 2022. He claims the supervisor treated his predominantly Black team less favorably, refused to engage with some members, and made comments about the racial makeup of the group.

Propst, who is white and gay, also alleges the supervisor reacted negatively after learning that his husband is Black. He claims she later declined to support his continued leadership role in Wells Fargo's Pride employee group and told him the group needed younger leadership. Propst further alleges she asked whether he was the oldest person on her leadership team and encouraged him to consider retirement.

Federal law protects workers age 40 and older from employment discrimination because of age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act separately bars discrimination because of sex, a protection the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled includes sexual orientation.

His disability claims center on a serious visual impairment for which Wells Fargo had previously approved workplace accommodations. Propst says the bank provided large monitors and allowed him to work remotely. After the management change, he claims his supervisor pressured him to return to the office and began monitoring his building badge activity despite the accommodation.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified workers with disabilities when those changes allow them to perform their jobs and do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Accommodations can include changes to equipment, schedules, or workplace policies, while remote work may qualify depending on a worker's needs and job duties.

Propst also claims he raised concerns with human resources and other Wells Fargo leaders about treatment involving race, age, disability, and sexual orientation. He alleges that he later received the first negative performance review of his lengthy career. His predominantly Black team also received poor reviews and less support, according to the lawsuit.

Employment discrimination laws also prohibit retaliation against workers who report conduct they reasonably believe is discriminatory. Those protections can extend to employees who complain about alleged discrimination affecting coworkers, rather than only treatment directed at themselves.

By August 2023, Propst alleges the conditions had become severe enough that he felt compelled to leave Wells Fargo. He was 63 at the time and says he had planned to continue working until age 67. The lawsuit claims Wells Fargo later replaced him with a substantially younger employee.

At the center of that part of the case is a legal concept known as constructive discharge. A resignation can be treated as a termination when discriminatory working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to leave. The standard requires more than workplace frustration, criticism, or an unpleasant relationship with a supervisor and focuses on the conditions surrounding the departure.

Propst is seeking a jury trial, more than $1.2 million in estimated lost wages and benefits, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Wells Fargo disputes the allegations and intends to defend against them, a company spokesman told the Charlotte Observer.