Tag: lawsuits

JPM Tried $1 Million Payoff To Bury Banker’s Sexual Assault Claims Before Daily Mail Bombshell

Why?

The Wall Street Journal has released a new report stating that JPMorgan reportedly offered former investment banker Chirayu Rana $1 million to settle his sexual assault, harassment, and racial discrimination claims against Hajdini before he filed the lawsuit.

Rana’s lawsuit was refiled on Monday after being withdrawn for a week. The lawsuit went viral after a Daily Mail report, which was later followed by a New York Post article citing sources who said the bank “found no evidence of wrongdoing” and Hajdini’s lawyer, who rejected the claims in the suit.

“The original lawsuit was not withdrawn,” said David Kramer, Rana’s lawyer. “After filing, the court clerk informed us that the suit required review and sign-off from the judge before being formally filed under a pseudonym. Upon signature by the judge yesterday, the suit was formally filed under a pseudonym.”

Rana alleges that Hajdini sexually assaulted him and that co-workers subjected him to racial harassment related to his Nepalese background.

JPM’s settlement offer was reportedly intended to avoid litigation and reputational damage. JPM maintains that the claims are baseless.

The report stated that Rana’s lawyers did not accept the $1 million offer and later countered JPM with a proposed settlement of $11.75 million.

Rana joined JPM’s leveraged finance team in May 2024, filed an internal HR complaint in May 2025, was placed on paid leave, and later left the bank. He then joined private equity firm Bregal Sagemount in October 2025 but was reportedly let go last month.

“If you don’t f— me soon, I’m going to ruin you… Never forget, I f—ing own you,” Hajdini allegedly said, as detailed in the suit. “If you don’t f— my brains out tonight, I’m going to sabotage your promotion.”

The lawsuit continued, “She then told Plaintiff to suck her toes, repeating that she would facilitate his promotion and bonus.”

Keep reading

Government Sues New York Times for Alleged Discrimination Against White Man

The New York Times is making news itself these days, with a “diversity and inclusion” drive that’s dragged it into court.

One of the most influential liberal news outlets in the nation is facing a federal lawsuit from President Donald Trump’s administration over alleged discrimination against an unidentified white male employee in favor of women, blacks, and other nonwhites when a promotion was at stake.

And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission clearly isn’t fooling around.

In the lawsuit, according to the New York Post, the alleged victim claimed the Times employee had been passed over for a promotion in favor of a final panel of candidates that included “a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.”

According to a New York Times report about the suit, the alleged victim claimed that the promotion of a white man would fail to follow the newspaper’s own goals as described in a 2021 document called “Call to Action.”

“A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees, or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the NYT to achieve these results,” the article noted, citing the lawsuit.

The man at the heart of the issue has been working at the newspaper since 2014, according to the New York Times report. Last year, he applied for a job as deputy real estate editor, the newspaper stated. He did get one interview for the job, but never made it to the panel interview stage.

The EEOC lawsuit claims he is more qualified than the person who received the promotion.

Keep reading

Second ‘Detransitioner’ Wins Settlement for Life-Altering Double Mastectomy

In 2020, Camille Kiefel had a double mastectomy, removing her healthy breasts to align with her ‘nonbinary gender identity.” Kiefel says doctors approved the surgery after two Zoom meetings without addressing the underlying mental health issues that she had battled for years.

Kiefel website shares:

A detransitioner, Camille once believed a non-binary double mastectomy would finally provide relief where 20- years of talk therapy with conventional modalities hadn’t; she lives with physical health issues from the surgery. Through improved diet, and directly addressing her physical health imbalances, her mental health resolved. She now brings awareness to the often overlooked, but undeniable link between physical health and mental health.

Camille determined that the discomforts that lead to her gender dysphoria were rooted in the state of her physical health all along—and they had been overlooked by her doctor, two mental health professionals, and a surgeon.

“Gender affirming treatments are experimental, risky and distributed inconsistently. Before we consider invasive surgeries, we must first look at all low-risk alternative treatments that address the physical health of the individual,” she shares.

In 2022, she filed a malpractice lawsuit against her social worker, therapist, and the gender clinics they work for, Brave Space Oregon and Quest Center for Integrative Health, after alleging they failed to properly screen her mental health issues before approving the mastectomy.

In an amended lawsuit, she further alleges that doctors did not discuss the risks involved with the proposed surgery.

Investigative journalist Benjamin Ryan was the first to report that a confidential settlement had been reached, “just days before the trial was slated to begin.”

Keep reading

Families of ‘transgender’ school shooting victims sue OpenAI, say it ‘facilitated’ massacre

The families of the victims of a brutal school shooting at the hands of a suspected “transgender”-identifying male killer in a remote Canadian town are suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, in a California court.

In total, several lawsuits were filed in a San Francisco courthouse on April 29, with over $1 billion in damages being sought, according to lawyers.

The lawsuit is related to one of Canada’s deadliest school shootings. As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian shooter suspect, identified as 18-year-old male Jesse Van Rootselaar, went on a rampage on February 10, killing eight, mostly children, and wounding no less than 27 people.

Van Rootselaar, who later killed himself, dressed as a female. It is the second-worst school shooting in Canadian history. Many of the victims are still on life support.

The lawsuits allege negligence, wrongful death, and product liability and directly accuse OpenAI and its leaders of aiding and abetting the shooting.

Altman is a homosexual who is “married” to another man, procured a baby boy through surrogacy, and has expressed radical transhumanist views, and ChatGPT, a chatbot developed by OpenAI, is known for left-wing bias.

The lawsuits say that OpenAI did not flag disturbing content posted by the shooter online. They allege that the company was silent about contacting the police about the shooter because it would have shown just how prevalent violent dialogue is on ChatGPT.

OpenAI is soon looking to go public, and doing so is expected to make over $1 trillion for the company. This lawsuit could impact this. 

One of the wrongful death plaintiffs is the father of Abel Mwansa Jr., who was a Grade 7 student killed. 

The lawsuit has also been filed on behalf of 12-year-old Maya Gebala, who is recovering from shots to the head and has been left with serious brain injuries.

Keep reading

Missouri State U. shuts down Bias Response Team amid First Amendment lawsuit

Missouri State University has accelerated the process of shutting down its Bias Response Team amid a lawsuit brought by Defending Education, a national grassroots organization that fights left-wing indoctrination in classrooms.

The complaint, filed April 21, claims campus leaders abused students’ constitutional rights and chilled free speech by allowing the team to monitor and investigate alleged acts of bias.

“Missouri State University and its officials have enacted a far-reaching policy that is designed to deter, discourage, and otherwise prevent students from expressing disfavored views about the political and social issues of the day,” violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the complaint stated.

In response, the university argues it is now shutting down the 10-year-old Bias Response Team.

Missouri State University spokeswoman Andrea Mostyn said officials made the decision to begin disbanding its Bias Response Team last month, before any litigation was issued. It was originally planned for July, but “has now accelerated that timeline.”

However, she added, the “university stands behind the work of the Bias Response Team.”

“The team’s purpose was limited, and its work was conducted in accordance with the university’s obligations under the First Amendment and other applicable law,” she said in an email to The College Fix. 

“The team historically reviewed isolated, anonymous reports of bias on campus, such as graffiti containing swastikas or racial epithets,” but rarely met since it was limited in scope and infrequent, with its most recent meeting being last September, she said.

In February 2025, the Bias Response Team page, which is now inactive, stated that it “serves to advocate for both individuals and groups impacted by acts of bias” by students they deem “perpetrators.”

Defending Education mentioned three students at MSU who want to engage in open debate and dialogue, “but they credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views will be considered ‘biased,’ ‘offensive,’ ‘discriminatory,’ or the like.” 

Some of these views include being pro-life, pro-family, and anti-illegal immigration.

Moreover, the lawsuit noted that students have been previously reported for bias “for writing a satirical article about ‘safe spaces,’ tweeting ‘#BlackLivesMatter,’ chalking ‘Build the Wall’ on a sidewalk, and expressing support for Donald Trump.”

Defending Education declined to comment to The College Fix on the pending litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranks Missouri State University 123 out of 257 schools in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, giving it an F speech climate grade. In one poll, almost half of student respondents stated they have to self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month.

A 2020 investigation by The College Fix into some of the bias complaints filed at MSU found that in one instance, police were called to respond to a drawing of a penis.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Blocks Nationwide Access to Abortion Pills Via Mail

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked nationwide access to abortion pill prescriptions via telehealth and mail.

A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that abortion pills such as Mifepristone must be distributed in person.

Louisiana filed the lawsuit after the FDA allowed Mifepristone to be distributed via telehealth and mail during the Covid pandemic.

In 2023, the ‘Covid’ change to how abortion pills were distributed became permanent.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lashed out at Louisiana’s ‘anti-abortion politicians’ after the ruling came down from the appeals court.

“Anti-abortion politicians have just made it much harder for people everywhere in the country to get a medication that abortion and miscarriage patients have been safely using for more than 25 years,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU.

“Louisiana’s legal attack on mifepristone shamelessly packaged lies and propaganda as an excuse to restrict abortion — and the Fifth Circuit rubber-stamped it,” they said.

“This decision defies clear science and settled law and advances an anti-abortion agenda that is deeply unpopular with the American people,” the ACLU said.

“For countless people, especially those who live in rural areas, face intimate partner violence, or live with disabilities, losing a telemedicine option will mean losing access to this vital medication altogether,” the ACLU added.

NBC News reported:

A federal appeals court on Friday granted the state of Louisiana’s request to reinstate a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person.

The ruling represents a victory for opponents of abortion rights, since it limits access by blocking people’s ability to obtain mifepristone — one of the two pills used in medication abortions — through telehealth and by mail.

Telehealth prescriptions have been key to maintaining abortion access in states that outlawed or restricted the practice after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

During the Covid pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration temporarily eliminated a requirement for mifepristone to be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals. The change was then made permanent in 2023.

Louisiana challenged that FDA regulation in federal court last year, alleging that the data to support it was flawed or nonexistent. Multiple studies have shown that mifepristone is safe and effective when taken at home after a consultation with a clinician.

Keep reading

Justice Department sues New Jersey for granting tuition support for illegals but not citizens

The Justice Department has filed a complaint against New Jersey laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance to illegal immigrants. 

The laws discriminate against U.S. citizens who aren’t granted the same tuition rates, scholarships and other subsidies, which is unconstitutional, according to the complaint.

“Imagine being denied the opportunity of education in your own country. By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, the state of New Jersey is doing just that,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement. 

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said that the agency wouldn’t tolerate U.S. citizens who are being treated like “second-class citizens in their own country.” 

“This is a simple matter of federal law: in New Jersey and nationwide, colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” he said. 

Keep reading

Judge Prevents Elon Musk’s Case Against OpenAI from Turning into a Trial of AI

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers repeatedly intervened during the third day of Elon Musk’s testimony in his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, steering attorneys away from broad debates about AI’s potential threat to humanity.

NBC News reports that the contentious legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI entered its third day with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers firmly redirecting the proceedings back to the core legal issues at hand. The case centers on Musk’s claims that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman betrayed public trust by enriching himself through the AI company they co-founded in 2015 as a nonprofit organization.

The day began with a heated exchange when Musk’s attorney Steven Molo attempted to discuss AI’s potential dangers. “This is a real risk, we all could die as a result of artificial intelligence,” Molo argued in objection to the judge’s efforts to limit the discussion.

Judge Rogers quickly shut down this line of argument, pointing out the irony in Musk’s position. “It’s ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company that is in the exact space,” Rogers stated. “There are some people who do not want to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk’s hands … But we’re not going to get into that business.”

The lawsuit represents the culmination of a years-long dispute between the two tech leaders, who have previously exchanged public criticism online. Altman was present in the courtroom during Musk’s testimony on Wednesday and Thursday.

The four-week trial could have significant implications for OpenAI’s future and its flagship product, ChatGPT. Musk is seeking approximately $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and co-defendant Microsoft, one of OpenAI’s major financial supporters. His lawsuit claims that OpenAI benefited substantially from his financial contributions, advice, recruitment assistance, and business connections.

Keep reading

Bombshell sex harassment suit against Lorna Hajdini, JPMorgan branded ‘complete fabrication’ as John Doe is unmasked

A former JPMorgan staffer whom sources identified as Chirayu Rana has been accused of making fabricated sexual harassment claims against a high-ranking executive at the bank after an internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, The Post has learned.

Multiple sources told The Post that 35-year-old Rana, now a principal at investment firm Bregal Sagemount, is the man who brought the bombshell lawsuit against Lorna Hajdini earlier this week.

Rana’s suit, filed on Monday under the pseudonym John Doe, accused the 37-year-old executive director of turning him into her “sex slave” by drugging him with Rohypnol and Viagra and threatening to slash his bonus if he did not comply.

The Daily Mail broke the story on Wednesday evening, citing lurid details from a now-retracted court document that has been withdrawn for “corrections.”

The British tabloid, quoting the now-deleted court papers, reported that Hajdini, executive director on JPMorgan’s leveraged finance team, even turned up unannounced at Rana’s apartment and forced him to have sex.

Hajdini hit back in a statement issued to The Post via her lawyers: “Lorna categorically denies the allegations. She never engaged in any inappropriate conduct with this individual of any kind and has never even been to the location where the alleged sexual assault supposedly took place.”

Rana, who did not reply to The Post’s multiple requests for comment, claimed that the alleged coercion began shortly after he joined JPMorgan’s leveraged finance team in the spring of 2024.

He filed an internal complaint in May 2025, alleging race- and gender-based harassment and abuse of power, before trying to negotiate a payoff that ran into “millions” to leave the company, sources said.

The suit also named JPMorgan Chase as a defendant, accusing the bank of retaliation and failing to investigate properly.

Daniel J. Kaiser, the attorney listed on the New York County Supreme Court docket as representing “John Doe,” did not return The Post’s calls seeking comment.

Keep reading

DOJ Sues New Jersey Over Mask Ban for Law Enforcement

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing New Jersey over a law that bars local, state, and federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks and requires them to show identification before making arrests.

Filed on April 29 in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, the lawsuit requests an injunction to block New Jersey’s Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which applies to all law enforcement officers, including federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The Justice Department argues that the law is unconstitutional, calling it an “illegal attempt to regulate the federal government” and saying that it would compromise the safety of federal officers.

Threatening federal agents with prosecution for concealing their identities during detentions “chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations,” the agency said.

“The Department of Justice will steadfastly protect the privacy and safety of law enforcement from unconstitutional state laws like New Jersey’s,” Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a statement.

In February, a federal judge preliminarily blocked a similar law in California that barred federal agents from concealing their faces while working.

Keep reading