(Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. said that it can’t be held responsible for alleged harassment of a TP ICAP broker by one of the bank’s traders, denying it knew of any inappropriate conduct.
The broker, Christine O’Reilly, sued Citigroup along with her employer and a UK-based superior in New York in August, claiming ICAP encouraged her to go along with the trader’s advances to keep orders flowing. In court filings on Wednesday and Thursday, both defendants largely denied O’Reilly’s allegations and also contended legal deficiencies would require dismissal of many of her claims.
In a letter to the judge in the case, Citigroup said it would soon ask her to throw out O’Reilly’s claims against the bank over alleged misconduct by former London-based trader Benjamin Waters. It said that it had no legal duty to her since she wasn’t a Citigroup employee.
“The lack of an employment relationship between plaintiff and the Citi defendants is fatal to plaintiff’s claims for discrimination and retaliation,” lawyers for the bank wrote to US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan. Waters, who was not named as a defendant, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. He previously declined to comment on the suit.
O’Reilly’s lawsuit amplified complaints already surrounding Citigroup’s equities trading division. A number of female employees have said they were forced to endure sexism and a toxic work culture, Bloomberg News previously reported.
ICAP on Thursday denied many of O’Reilly’s allegations, including that it engaged in a “toxic alliance” with Citigroup and that its “work culture emphasized relationship-building through after-hours socializing.” The brokerage also denied O’Reilly’s claim that she reported harassment to a senior managing director and subsequently suffered retaliation. According to ICAP, the firm hoped to retain O’Reilly but that she planned to leave to attend law school.
The brokerage said it lacked enough information to address many specific allegations about Waters’ interactions with O’Reilly, though.
In her suit, O’Reilly also named as a defendant Janie McCathie, a London-based ICAP desk head whom she described as her supervisor. McCathie allegedly told O’Reilly to “play the game” and go along with Waters’ advances after he threatened to reduce order flow to ICAP. The firm on Thursday denied both that McCathie was O’Reilly’s supervisor and that she pressured her.
ICAP admitted, though, that McCathie publicly berated O’Reilly on the firm’s New York-London “hoot,” using an expletive and calling her “useless” on Feb. 21. O’Reilly cited the hoot incident in her suit as part of an alleged pattern of retaliation.
Lawyers for McCathie on Wednesday asked Failla for permission to seek dismissal of the claims against her for lack of jurisdiction. They said McCathie was not O’Reilly’s supervisor and didn’t even work for the same company. ICAP also said it would seek dismissal of claims against its London-based parent, saying O’Reilly was only an employee of a US subsidiary.
McCathie’s lawyers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. An attorney for O’Reilly declined to comment.
The case is O’Reilly v. ICAP Corporates LLC, 24-cv-05913, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
--With assistance from Sridhar Natarajan and David Scheer.
©2024 Bloomberg L.P.