A loan originator who was employed for only four months at Guaranteed Rate Inc. sued his former employer in federal court claiming the company retaliated when he complained about slow processing by not providing him with the same compensation perks as other originators. But Guaranteed Rate has prevailed.
When he joined the Chicago-based company in 2009, Jesse Anderson agreed to a sales compensation plan that earned him commissions for loans he closed.
But Anderson claims that he wasn’t adequately compensated because Guaranteed Rate failed to facilitate the processing and closing of his loans.
He complained at a November 2009 sales meeting and says his supervisor, Adam Kamarat, accused him two days later of embarrassing him. Anderson was ordered to stop talking with the loan processor — even though other originators weren’t prohibited from talking with her — and was told to “shut up and be humble” or face being fired. In addition, Anderson’s request to transfer to another team was denied despite being approved for other originators.
Anderson alleges that he was subsequently treated differently than other similarly situated mortgage consultants and didn’t receive the same compensation perks as his peers. He also alleged that Guaranteed Rate retaliated against him.
He was forced to resign after just for months of employment — a move Anderson claims amounted to a constructive discharge.
No compensation was paid to Anderson during his employment at Guaranteed Rate.
In June 2010, Anderson filed a complaint against the lender alleging discrimination on the basis of his age and race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981.
The complaint was subsequently amended to add claims of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
However, Anderson’s FLSA claim was limited by the court to a claim that he was not properly compensated for the hours he worked.
An offer of judgment by the defendants was accepted by Anderson, though — after the close of discovery and while summary judgment motions were pending — he sought leave to amend his complaint to assert a claim for retaliation in violation of the FLSA.
But the court denied his motion to amend as untimely and unduly prejudicial on Jan. 13 of this year.
So five days later, Anderson filed another instant lawsuit against Guaranteed, Kamarat and another supervisor named Robert Stines — again asserting a claim for retaliation in violation of the FLSA.
Guaranteed Rate filed a motion to dismiss the case.
“Defendants contend that Anderson’s complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of claim preclusion because the court in Anderson I denied Anderson’s motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for FLSA retaliation,” the court wrote in its decision. “The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion ‘prohibits parties from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in a previous action in which there was a final judgment on the merits.'”
Guaranteed Rate’s motion was granted on May 28, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
