WELLS FARGO PRETENDS TO INTERVIEW BLACK PEOPLE

---

Wells Fargo to pay $85 million over alleged “fake” diversity interviews

What’s new: Wells Fargo has agreed to an $85 million settlement to resolve a shareholder class action alleging the bank staged interviews with women and minority candidates for jobs that were already filled (or not truly open) in order to appear compliant with an internal diversity-slate policy. The deal follows three years of litigation and is subject to final court approval.

Key points

Who sued: Lead plaintiffs include SEB Investment Management AB and the West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund, on behalf of investors. They alleged securities fraud tied to statements about Wells Fargo’s “Diverse Search Requirement.”

Where the case sits: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT, Judge Trina L. Thompson.

Alleged practice: Hiring managers were said to conduct interviews with diverse candidates even after a preferred candidate had been chosen, creating a misleading impression of compliant, good-faith diverse hiring.

Settlement scope & posture: $85 million in cash to resolve investor claims; no admission of wrongdoing by the bank; final approval still pending.


How we got here: timeline

Feb 2021–Jun 2022 (Class Period): Wells Fargo touted a policy requiring diverse slates for most U.S. roles ≥$100k. Plaintiffs say the bank’s statements were misleading because sham interviews were occurring.

2022: Public allegations surfaced (including from former executive Joe Bruno) that some interviews were staged; investor suit filed soon after.

2024–2025: Motion to dismiss denied; class certified; trial set for early 2026; parties then negotiated the settlement “on the eve” of summary-judgment arguments.

Oct 2025: Multiple outlets report the $85M figure and pending court approval.


What this settlement is — and isn’t

Investor (securities) case, not an applicant case: The money is earmarked for a class of shareholders, not job applicants who sat for alleged sham interviews. Separate employment or civil-rights claims would be different cases.

Corporate disclosure angle: Plaintiffs argued Wells Fargo’s public statements about its hiring practices were materially misleading to investors, violating federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a)).

No admission: Standard for such settlements; the bank says settling avoids further costs and distractions.


Why it matters

For companies: Diversity-slate or “Rooney Rule”-style policies create legal risk if implemented performatively. Misalignment between policy, practice, and public statements can trigger securities liability, not just employment claims.

For job seekers: The case spotlighted how process optics can diverge from actual opportunity. While this settlement doesn’t pay applicants, it increases pressure on employers to document good-faith hiring and audit local practices against what’s promised publicly.


What’s next

Court approval process: Expect a preliminary-approval order, a notice program to the investor class, a claims process, and a final fairness hearing before funds—net of fees—are distributed. (The KTMC case docket summarizes posture and next steps.)


Sources: HR Dive (Oct. 22, 2025); Yahoo Finance (Oct. 22, 2025); Charlotte Observer (Oct. 21, 2025); Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check case page; Forbes analysis referencing Law360 coverage.