A corrected complaint, a blackmail counter-accusation, and Megyn Kelly with a take — yeah, we’re in the weeds now. This is Banker Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Watch. Today, the JPMorgan filing gets uglier from both directions — the plaintiff’s side and the defense side are both adding fuel. And now cable TV is in the mix, which is usually what happens when the legal argument isn’t carrying the whole story on its own. We’ll get into what changed in the amended complaint, what the blackmail accusation actually means in legal terms, and whether Megyn Kelly’s credibility analysis belongs anywhere outside a TV hit. From AOL:
A former JPMorgan Chase employee has refiled a"corrected" sexual harassment lawsuit against a female executive — vowing to continue his legal fight with the banking giant even as the defendants have adamantly denied his graphic account of abuse and blackmail.
In addition to the updated complaint, filed Monday, May 4, the plaintiff also submitted several exhibits that he maintains support his claims of harassment and assault.
John Doe has refiled a corrected complaint against JPMorgan executive Lorna Hajdini — the exhibits are attached, the anonymity motion is still pending, and a licensed therapist is already in the record as a potential witness. When a plaintiff comes back with a corrected filing instead of bowing out, that usually means the legal team thinks there’s still something they can build. And JPMorgan’s response is the old corporate staple: we looked into ourselves and found nothing. Meanwhile, this guy is pointing to a TV therapist as his PTSD diagnosis — so either that’s a very aggressive strategy, or they’re working with the record they’ve got. Hajdini’s attorneys called the claims “entirely fabricated,” which is about as hard a denial as you can put on paper. But that word is also headline bait, not just motion-to-dismiss language. So yes, both sides are talking to the press right now. Times of India writes:
Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly weighed in on the latest findings of the Chirayu Rana-Lora Hajdini sexual assault lawsuit and said she thinks it is all made up because Lorna Hajdini is too attractive to fall for someone like Rana, she said.
Megyn Kelly has weighed in on the Chirayu Rana lawsuit against JPMorgan executive Lorna Hajdini, and her point, bluntly, is that Hajdini is too attractive to have done what’s alleged. That is not a legal defense. That has never been a legal defense. Kelly also pointed to Rana’s short stints at prior employers and a disputed claim about his father’s death — fine, those are at least actual credibility issues. But ‘she’s hot, so why would she’ is the kind of line that gets laughed out of a deposition. Michael Knowles made a more technical point about the alleged quote — specifically, whether the phrasing sounds like something a person would actually say. That’s a real framing argument. Everything else here was just noise. Here's one from r/law (8 upvotes):
Full article here: I have a question: if he is not actually legally married, but the lawsuit claims the defendant racially insulted his wife, would that materially weaken his case or credibility? Or could “wife” simply refer to a partner, or even be an assumption made by the defendant that he had a wife?
Good question from r/law — if Rana isn’t legally married, does the racial slur aimed at his “wife” lose force in the case? Probably not much. Courts have treated “wife” as covering domestic partners before, and even if Hajdini assumed he had a wife, that assumption can still point to discriminatory intent. Defense is absolutely going to pick at that — any factual inconsistency in the complaint is fair game. But a slur is still a slur whether the target’s spouse has a ring or not. That’s the piece that matters when this actually gets in front of a jury. We’ve put links to all of today’s stories in the show notes if you want to dig into the details or revisit anything that stood out. That’s Banker Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Watch for this Wednesday, May 13th. This is a Lantern Podcast.