Julie McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association

<p>United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2638 ___________________________ Julie McKey lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Bank National Association, doing business as U.S. Bank lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2020 Filed: October 23, 2020 ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge. Julie McKey claims U.S. Bank fired her because of her age and in retaliation for reporting discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The district court1 granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm. 1 The Honorable Nancy Ellen Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. I. McKey began working for U.S. Bank, a national bank with offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1975. In 2006, she started as a Securities Specialist for the Global Corporate Actions Department. Her job included managing clients’ financial portfolios, processing trades and transactions, meeting deadlines, and working with multiple computer systems. She was generally expected to do her job within a 40-hour workweek. From 2011 until she was fired in September 2016, McKey worked under Yvonne Mehsikomer, who reported to Senior Trust Technology and Support Services Manager Keith Frohlicher. Frohlicher reported to U.S. Bank Operations Manager Alice Owens. U.S. Bank gives annual performance reviews to its employees on a 5-point “grading” scale—a score of 1 on the scale means “exceptional”; 5 means “not effective.” D. Ct. Dkt. 127 at 3. Though McKey consistently scored 3s (“solid performance”) on her performance reviews from 2011 to 2015,2 her reviews often included comments from Mehsikomer about performance issues. In 2015, U.S. Bank introduced an upgrade to XSP, the computer program that McKey and her team used to make client elections. Employees were trained, but McKey requested additional training and someone to sit with her at her desk every day to assist her. In July 2015, Mehsikomer began documenting McKey’s performance issues in a “significant event form,” and Mehsikomer and Frohlicher met with her multiple times in the fall of 2015 about mistakes posting client elections, her failure to complete assigned duties, and her need for extra time to complete work. In April 2016, Mehsikomer put McKey on a 60-day performance improvement plan (PIP). When Mehsikomer met with McKey to start the PIP, 2 The record contains no performance review from 2013. -2- McKey said several things in the PIP were inaccurate. McKey then emailed Kerri Guse, Senior Human Resources Business Partner, writing “I am concerned that my manager is attempting to have me fired due to my age,” and Guse called McKey to discuss her concerns. D. Ct. Dkt. 127 at 6. McKey continued to make errors during the PIP process, but completed the program on July 8, 2016. Early that August, an error was made in the election for a corporate action notice for a customer asset called “Iberdrola,” which resulted in a $62,000 loss. D. Ct. Dkt. 127 at 7. Suspicion first fell on McKey, ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799765/julie-mckey-v-us-bank-national-association/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid Julie McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Julie McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Julie McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.


>