Former JPMorgan big shot Chirayu Rana – who accused his female boss of forcing him into humiliating sex acts – is pulling the plug on his salacious New York state court case to make way for a “comprehensive” federal lawsuit.
Rana’s new legal team — a total of five lawyers — claims in explosive new filings that the original suit against Lorna Hajdini left out crucial federal violations, including race discrimination, retaliation and interference with family and medical leave.
The full airing of grievances should now take place in federal rather than state court, according to the court documents filed Monday in Manhattan Supreme Court.
“The public has been fed a wildly distorted version of this case, manufactured from sensational headlines that bear no resemblance to what actually happened to Mr. Rana,” said Rana’s new attorney Jon L. Norinsberg.
His new lawyers, according to filings and statements made Monday, claim there is “substantial new evidence we have uncovered,” but fail to cite any specifics.
But Rana’s new fleet of attorneys — including two name partners and the head of litigation from employee powerhouse firm Joseph & Norinsberg — also cited First Amendment defences in response to Hajdini’s counterclaim of defamation.
At least some of his statements “are matters of opinion, they are not capable of being proven true or false.”
“Some or all of the statements at issue are not actionable under the First Amendment and New York law,” according to the court papers, “because they constitute statements of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.”
“This countersuit is a transparent act of retaliation, a desperate effort to punish Mr. Rana for having the courage to report the racism and abuse he suffered,” said Bennitta L. Joseph, another one of Rana’s new lawyers.
Hajdini’s counterclaims in state court would be unaffected by his move to discontinue his own claims.
The court docs also claim that “some or all of the statements at issue are true or substantially true,” but did not specify which or the distinction between the legalese.
“At all times Plaintiff acted in good faith and with no improper motive,” the filing states.
JPMorgan has also strongly denied Rana’s claims.
Neither the bank nor reps for Hajdini immediately responded to requests for comment.
Follow the latest on the bizarre JPMorgan banker ‘sex slave’ allegations:
The new federal lawsuit promises to be under his real name and not an anonymous pseudonym, which a Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled he must do in the state lawsuit last month.
“Resolving the matter in a single federal proceeding will avoid piecemeal or parallel litigation and conserve the resources of the parties and this Court,” the filing reads, adding that Rana will plan on filing the theoretical federal suit by the end of the month.
Prior to shuffling through two separate law firms in this case, Rana had reportedly sought legal advice from a free, public legal chatbot on the web.
Rana’s original salacious lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court claimed he was subjected to a sustained campaign of sexual coercion and racial degradation while management ignored his complaints, and that Hajdini threatened to slash his bonus unless he agreed to become her “sex slave.”
His initial lawyer, a month after filing Rana’s suit — and hours before their first court appearance, sought to drop his client, citing a mutual agreement.
But the court compelled him to come to the hearing, where their request to proceed as “John Doe” was denied in an hourlong session.
“The case law makes it really clear,” said Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Dakota D. Ramseur. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”
Ramseur concluded that hearing by encouraging both sides to “find out what, if anything, can make this case resolve itself.”
By signaling their intent to take their case to the feds, Rana and his five attorneys appear to be taking a different approach instead.