Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01315/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mohamed Hamze, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1315-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This court has before it defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 18), plaintiff's

response (doc. 20), and defendant's reply (doc. 26). 

I

Plaintiff began his employment with Bank of America (the "Bank") in 1995 as a

collector, for which he was paid approximately $17,000 per year. He was consistently

promoted and at the time of his termination he served as a Risk Operations Unit Manager,

earning an annual salary of approximately $91,000. Pursuant to the Financial Action Task

Force, an international anti-money laundering organization, the Treasury Department's

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Patriot Act, the Bank has a duty to pay

special attention to, among other things, suspicious transactions involving international wire

transfers. As part of its risk management and regulatory compliance programs, the Bank

routinely conducts internal monitoring of randomly selected accounts to detect check kiting,

Case 2:05-cv-01315-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

money laundering, fraud, or any other activity that may be in violation of federal banking

regulations. During the Bank's routine monitoring, the Bank's Data Security Unit and AntiMoney Laundering Unit found suspicious activity in a personal consumer checking account

involving the movement of money between a United States bank account and overseas bank

accounts in Lebanon. During the course of the investigation, the Bank discovered that

plaintiff was the named accountholder of the account in question. The Bank also learned that

plaintiff, along with his brother, Khodar Hamze, had been purchasing used cars in the United

States, and then exporting them for resale in Lebanon. Plaintiff indicated that he opened a

personal consumer account for the purpose of receiving wire transfers for this business. The

funds, which totaled over $314,000, were wired from Beirut and Tripoli, Lebanon, and

consisted of $249,844 in wire transfers during one month (from January 5, 2004 to February

6, 2004), as well as an additional $64,475 wired on a single day in April 2004. Plaintiff

stated that he was acting as an "unpaid agent," or the "middle person" of the operation, and

was facilitating the transfer of funds from Lebanon to his cousin in North Carolina, who was

in turn using the money to purchase cars in the United States to be sold in Lebanon. 

Under the Bank's Code of Ethics, an employee is told that "[i]f you decide to pursue

additional employment, engage in an independent business venture or perform services for

another business organization, you must disclose such activities to your manager and obtain

his or her preapproval to avoid any potential conflicts." PSOF, Ex. 6, Ex. F at 4. Further,

an employee is instructed to "avoid all circumstances that could produce conflicts or the

appearance of conflicts between your personal interests and those of the Corporation." Id.

at 1. Conflicts of interest are "defined broadly" as "any situation in which you are engaged

in two or more activities or relationships that, to some degree, are incompatible. Such

situations might include activities, conduct or investments that could conflict with your duty

to Bank of America, or that could adversely affect your judgment or job performance." Id.

at 3. 

The Bank contends that plaintiff neither sought permission from the Bank prior to his

participation in this outside business enterprise, nor informed the Bank of his involvement.

Case 2:05-cv-01315-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Arizona Civil Rights Act is "generally identical" to Title VII, and therefore

"federal Title VII case law [is] persuasive in the interpretation of [the Arizona] Civil Rights

Act." Higdon v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 138 Ariz 163, 166 n.3, 673 P.2d 907, 909 n.3

(1983).

- 3 -

Plaintiff stated that he was not aware of his duty to inform the Bank of his involvement in

his brother's business activities. He also contends that he discussed his involvement in the

business venture with two supervisors, Tim Becker and Terry Ohr.

On April 20, 2004, after completing its investigation, the Bank terminated plaintiff

due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment and because plaintiff

disregarded Bank policies by failing to disclose his involvement in an outside business

venture, and by using a personal account for the business, thereby "creating a direct

misrepresentation of the true purpose for the activities of the account." Defendant's Motion

for Summary Judgment at 4. The Bank contends that plaintiff's failure to abide by its wellknown policies was especially egregious given his oversight responsibilities as Risk

Operations Unit Manager. Plaintiff contends in contrast that he was terminated because the

Bank improperly believed that he had committed a serious crime, such as terrorist activity,

simply because of his race, religion or national origin. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to

the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1461 et seq., alleging discrimination on the basis

of race, religion and national origin.1

II

To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973), a plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a

protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subjected to an adverse

employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were

treated more favorably. See also Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003). The

burden of production then shifts to the employer "to articulate some legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason" for its decision. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1093 (1981). If the employer successfully demonstrates

Case 2:05-cv-01315-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

a nondiscriminatory reason, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to produce sufficient

evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer's proffered

nondiscriminatory reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Id.

The Bank contends that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination

because he cannot establish that similarly situated employees outside his protected class were

treated more favorably. In order to satisfy this element of the prima facie case, an individual

seeking relief "must demonstrate, at the least, that they are similarly situated in all material

respects." Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 755 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff identified two other

Bank employees in management positions who had outside business interests but were not

terminated, although he could only provide the name of one of these employees. PSOF ¶ 23.

These individuals, however, are not similarly situated to plaintiff "in all material respects."

Even if we assume that these employees engaged in outside business ventures, there is no

allegation that either employee failed to inform the Bank of such business interests, or

otherwise violated Bank policies. Plaintiff's ground for termination was not that he simply

had an outside business interest, but that he failed to disclose this outside interest and obtain

preapproval, as required by Bank policies. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to make the

minimum showing necessary to establish that these coworkers were similarly situated, and

as a result he is unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Moran, 447 F.3d

at 755. Accordingly, plaintiff's discrimination claims must be dismissed. 

Though it is not necessary to our decision, we find unavailing plaintiff's argument that

because he believed that his outside business activity did not present a conflict of interest,

he was not required to disclose the activity or seek preapproval. The Bank's policy, however,

requires an employee to "disclose such [outside business activity] to [a] manager and obtain

his or her preapproval to avoid any potential conflicts." The notice requirement exists

independent of a finding of an actual conflict of interest. Further, we also note that the

questions posed by the investigator regarding plaintiff's religion, his national origin, his

citizenship status and his political affiliations directly related to the subject of the

Case 2:05-cv-01315-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

investigation, namely the transfer of large sums of money between international accounts.

These questions do not rise to the level of direct evidence of discriminatory animus. 

III

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion for summary

judgment (doc. 18). 

DATED this 30th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01315-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/06 Page 5 of 5