• Report: #485298
Complaint Review:

Sovereign Bank

  • Submitted: Tue, August 25, 2009
  • Updated: Wed, August 26, 2009

  • Reported By: former employee — Lititz Pennsylvania USA
Sovereign Bank
www.sovereignbank.com Internet United States of America
  • Phone:
  • Web:
  • Category: Banks

Sovereign Bank wrongful termination Lititz, Pennsylvania

* : Real reason for termination.

* : Discrimination?

* : A bit over sensitive?

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

I was working as a field auditor and discovered a branch sign that stated, "no hats, no hoods, no sunglasses."  I found this sign to be racially discriminatory and took it down since part of my responsibility was to ensure proper branch signage.  I felt that the reference targeted African Americans whose style of dress was being challenged. 

When I reported thsis to my superviosr, she told me that it was a policy of Sovereign Bank to display the signage.  I brought to her attention the fact that there was no way to police the policy and provided her with the example of a black male coming in the branch wiith a hat or hood and sunglasses, and a white woman who came in wearing the same items.  It was doubtful that the white woman would be asked to remove the items, but suspicion would fall on the black male who might be asked to remove the accessories.

After furhter internet researdh, I discovered that this policy was originallly brought about by a banking group in Massachusetts in order to deter the growing number of bank robberies.  Bank of Boston, which had mergerd with Sovereign Bank, had this policy in place before the merger.  The branches I audited in PA and NJ were never introduced to this policy, however, so technically I was correct in removing the sign.

My supervisor did not appreciate the emails I had sent to her and I was terminated.  I filed a discrimination report with the Human Relations Commission which took three years to review.  Once they decided that no discrimination was evident, I was able to file my own lawsuit against the bank.  This resulted in a minimal cash compensation that settled out of court.

I believe I was actually wrongfully terminated for doing my job. 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/25/2009 02:53 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/sovereign-bank/internet/sovereign-bank-wrongful-termination-lititz-pennsylvania-485298. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Sovereign Bank

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
0Author 3Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals


Real reason for termination.

AUTHOR: Flynrider - (U.S.A.)

   The real reason you were terminated was most likely because of your ridiculously poor judgement.    You took it upon yourself to decide that a procedure used to discourage bank robberies was discriminatory.   Your silly assumptions were based on nothing more than your imagination.   The decision of the Human Relations Commission should have made that clear.

Respond to this report!
What's this?



AUTHOR: Inspector - (U.S.A.)

They fired you because you are a NUT!  I wish every business and airports would adopt this policy.  If you walk into a convenience store with a hood and sunglasses on, trust me, the clerk is reaching for a weapon or the alarm button.

Get some help with your persecution complex.

Respond to this report!
What's this?


A bit over sensitive?

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

"I found this sign to be racially discriminatory and took it down since part of my responsibility was to ensure proper branch signage."

- The first thing you say is that YOU found the sign to be discriminatory, and FELT that it was in reference to African Americans style of dress.  And that you have the BELIEF a white woman would not be asked to remove those items.  Your job was to ensure proper branch signage based on the policy, not what you FEEL the signage is inferring or could happen.

The Human Relations Commission(? must be a PA thing) didn't find any discrimination after 3 years.  Quite frankly the only reason they settled for a "minimal" cash settlement was that it was probably cheaper for them.  Because even if they prevailed in court it still would have cost them more to fight it than to settle out of court.

It's probably time to get that chip off of your shoulder and move on.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?