legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Purvis v. Wells Fargo

Purvis v. Wells Fargo
04:11:2006

Purvis v. Wells Fargo



Filed 3/15/06 Purvis v. Wells Fargo CA1/2





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.






IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA





FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION TWO










KAREN PURVIS,


Plaintiff and Appellant,


v.


WELLS FARGO & COMPANY et al,


Defendants and Respondents.



A108221


(San Francisco County


Super. Ct. No. 400050)



Karen Purvis appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo & Company (Wells Fargo) and Sheila Santana. We affirm the trial court's judgment.


BACKGROUND


Purvis, an African-American, began work as a Wells Fargo personal banker in December 1999 at Wells Fargo's Old Stanford Farm branch. She was transferred to the Los Altos branch a couple of months later.


On June 19, 2000, a Wells Fargo employee using Purvis's employee identification number and secret password authorized an override of a computer warning for a customer wanting to cash a $7,500 check with only $1,300 in her account. There had also been a $37,500 check returned unpaid on the customer's account earlier in the month. Cashing the customer's $7,500 check created an overdraft situation. Purvis had no authority to approve overdrafts.


The $7,500 check was subsequently returned unpaid, resulting in an operating loss to Wells Fargo of $6,111.58. It was company policy that when a personal banker or other employee failed to follow operating policies and loss procedures, they could be terminated when a significant actual loss occurred.


The parties' papers include discussion of numerous factual matters, including Wells Fargo's expressed disappointment with Purvis's performance, and Purvis's contentions that she was not properly trained nor given credit for all of her sales. We do not discuss these matters in detail herein, however, because they are not the focus of the arguments made on appeal.


According to Purvis, in August 2000, Wells Fargo overhauled its Online Home Referral Program, which was linked to a Web site that described â€





Description A decision as to race discrimination, wrongful discharge, failure to prevent discrimination, breach of contract and breach of implied covenant, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale