According to an amended legal filing on Monday, a managing director at Citigroup claimed that the bank failed to protect her from a supervisor’s violent threats and abuse due to its “pervasive” culture of sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

Ardith Lindsey, who previously served as Americas head of electronic sales trading, provided more information in her November lawsuit regarding threats from Mani Singh, once the bank’s North America Markets head of cash equity execution services. Singh resigned in November 2022.

Following the termination of their relationship in October 2022, Lindsey stated that Singh subjected her to five days of continuous phone calls and text messages filled with profanity and threats, including statements like “I am going to set you on fire” and “Kids no kids I don’t give a f*** I plan to burn it all down.”

Lindsey further alleged that Singh had subjected her to years of escalating abusive behavior, sometimes under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including threats to harm her and her family and sabotage her career if she rejected his advances.

Lindsey accused the bank of disregarding numerous warning signs about Singh’s behavior, choosing instead to promote him while failing to safeguard her and many other women from harm. She stated that she is currently on leave from the bank.

In response to Lindsey’s claims, Citigroup stated in November that it would defend itself against the allegations, emphasizing its commitment to ensuring that no one faces discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the conduct outlined in the initial filing, Citigroup noted discrepancies between Lindsey’s revised account and her earlier statements.

Lindsey also claimed in the amended complaint that she was assaulted by a senior manager who forcibly kissed her several months after joining the bank at the age of 24 in 2007.

According to Lindsey, the equities division of Citi has fostered an environment where sexual harassment and gender discrimination are widespread and severe, with male colleagues reportedly visiting strip clubs, engaging in excessive drinking, making inappropriate comments about female coworkers, and even using cocaine in the office.

Lindsey identified several senior executives at Citigroup who she alleges were involved in discriminatory or sexually harassing behavior. 

Additionally, she referenced the job titles of others who engaged in sexual relationships with their subordinates or junior staff members.

According to Lindsey, female employees who raised their concerns with managers and human resources faced retaliation or chose to leave the bank.

She further claimed that Citigroup did not address her complaints until she filed the lawsuit, nearly a year after initially reporting the threatening text messages from Singh.

When a senior manager discussed Lindsey’s lawsuit with colleagues, she alleged that he attempted to discredit her and dismiss her concerns as causing trouble.

In response to the allegations, Citigroup’s head of markets, Andy Morton, reportedly circulated a memo urging employees to report any inappropriate behavior they witnessed. Additionally, the company distributed a survey to women in the markets division to gauge the workplace environment, as stated by Lindsey.

Lindsey’s medical professionals have diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and memory loss, which she claims have rendered her unable to continue working, according to the complaint.

This lawsuit follows years of efforts by Wall Street banks to diversify their workforce and move away from their traditional “boys’ club” image.

Earlier this month, Wells Fargo faced accusations of sex discrimination in a lawsuit filed by a bond saleswoman, who alleged that the bank withheld pay and promotions from women while tolerating a workplace culture described as “unapologetically sexist.”

Last year, Goldman Sachs agreed to a $215 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of widespread bias against women in terms of pay and promotions, marking the resolution of one of the most prominent legal cases alleging unequal treatment of women in the Wall Street environment.

India Inc. Unresolved Cases of Sexual Harassment 

As companies globally tighten their disclosures, compliance, and governance norms, the focus on enabling safe, secure, and non-discriminatory workplaces has intensified. 

Despite efforts to create such environments in India, there’s a troubling trend emerging in sexual harassment cases within workplaces, requiring much-needed attention. 

The Data

The number of unresolved sexual harassment cases within India’s largest companies saw a staggering 101 percent increase in the fiscal year ending March 2023, spotlighting a significant backlog of complaints and the companies’ challenges in timely resolution. 

According to a Forbes India analysis based on company annual reports and data from anti-sexual harassment advisory firm Complykaro.com, there were 147 pending cases out of a total of 772 complaints in FY23. 

It’s important to note that this analysis focuses solely on companies listed in the BSE100 ESG Index.

The surge in pending cases is partly attributed to a higher volume of overall complaints in these companies year-on-year. 

The analysis reveals that in FY22, there were 73 pending cases out of 520 complaints. Similarly, in FY21 and FY20, the numbers stood at 73 and 89 pending cases respectively, with complaints totaling 416 and 649.

The concentration of unresolved cases is notably higher within the BSE100 Index, comprising over 65 percent of India’s listed companies’ total market capitalization. By the end of FY23, there were 205 pending cases out of 1,186 complaints, compared to 112 pending cases out of 814 complaints in the previous year.

There appears to be a potential reluctance among major companies to penalize employees publicly, fearing negative impacts on business outcomes. Also, the trend of leniency was previously shown towards employees who engaged in misconduct. 

This hesitancy could contribute to the accumulation of pending complaints as companies navigate the delicate balance between addressing misconduct and safeguarding their business interests.

The Numbers

The significant increase in pending cases offers little solace, even when considering the number of companies involved. Among Nifty companies, there were 165 pending cases out of a total of 883 complaints in FY23. This contrasts with the previous year’s total of 600 cases, with 82 unresolved cases.

The increased number of pending cases signals, by and large, a lack of willingness on the part of companies and ICCs. 

The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome, sexually physical, verbal, or nonverbal conduct. This includes suggestive remarks about women, demands for sexual favours, and sexually offensive visuals in the workplace. The definition also includes situations where a woman may be disadvantaged in her workplace due to threats related to employment decisions.

Why is this deeply concerning? 

The company is responsible for ensuring that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) resolve complaints within 90 days. 

Although the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly referred to as the Posh Act, stipulates this 90-day period for inquiry completion, no penalties are imposed on the company or the ICC for non-compliance. 

Should the company perceive that the ICC is failing in its duty, it is obligated to reconstitute the committee with more dedicated members. Moreover, the company and its management may face criminal prosecution as delays would constitute a violation of the provisions of the Posh Act.

In instances where a case remains unresolved beyond the 90-day period, the complainant reserves the right to request the ICC to expedite the inquiry, elevate the matter to the Ministry of Women & Child Development via its website, or file a criminal complaint before the metropolitan magistrate. 

Additionally, the complainant may opt for a private complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging the commission of an offense involving sexual harassment as defined under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code.

The Posh Act has criminalized acts of sexual harassment, stalking, and voyeurism, aiming to prevent and protect women from sexual harassment in workplaces and ensure effective complaint redressal. 

The Act mandates companies to establish ICCs responsible for grievance redressal. 

As per the Companies Act, 2013, and the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirement (LODR) 2015 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), companies are required to report the number of sexual harassment cases in their annual reports.

According to the CRB Report 2021, released in August 2022, crimes against women surged by 15.3 percent from 2021 and escalated from 56.5 percent in 2020 to 64.5 percent in 2021 (incidents per 1 lakh population). 

The National Commission for Women (NCW) received nearly 31,000 complaints in 2022, the highest figure since 2014.

Could it affect ESG ratings? 

Of greater concern is the prevalence of pending cases among companies listed on the BSE100 ESG Index. Given that corporate governance is a fundamental aspect of ESG standards, could this impact a company’s ratings?

A high number of pending Posh cases within a company may indicate potential shortcomings in effectively implementing its Posh policies. This could negatively affect the company’s performance on social indicators related to labor and human capital management. 

The interpretation of the surge in cases should also consider factors such as the nature of the cases, the organizational or systemic framework involved, and the broader context. 

While it may signal potential issues or obstacles, it does not automatically imply culpability or misconduct. Implementing effective mechanisms to address root causes and promptly and fairly resolve pending cases is vital in effectively managing these situations.

How are companies responding? 

Shaji Mathew, group head of Human Resource Development at Infosys, emphasizes the company’s stringent zero-tolerance and non-retaliation policies, along with promoting a culture of ‘Speaking Up’ to encourage employees to report grievances to Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). 

The rise in reported cases is predominantly observed in industries reliant on large workforces, such as financial services and information technology. 

Infosys led among Nifty companies with 78 reported cases in FY23, followed by Tech Mahindra (74 cases), Wipro (70 cases), and HDFC Bank (68 cases).

Among BSE100 ESG companies, Wipro reported the highest number of pending cases (19), followed by HDFC Life Insurance Company and Kotak Mahindra, each with 14 pending cases in FY23. 

During the same period, Wipro reported 70 cases, HDFC Life reported 60 cases, and Kotak Mahindra reported 56 cases. HCL Technologies had 16 unresolved cases out of 55 complaints in FY23.

Tata Steel reported 38 cases in FY23 compared to 22 in the previous year, with 10 and 4 unresolved cases in FY23 and FY22 respectively. 

The Last Bit, the underlying issue lies not in reporting cases but in addressing them effectively and within a specified timeframe. 

Hence, organizations must enhance their capabilities to manage this growing number of pending cases in India Inc.