Posted on 05/15/2012 2:21:09 PM PDT by dennisw
Yolanda Quesada, 58, worked in customer service at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in Milwaukee for five years. Although she has a number of recognition awards from her employer, two shoplifting arrests when she was 18 were reason enough to be fired, according to her employer.
Wells Fargo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Quesada told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that her employer would not let her explain the shoplifting incidents, which were from a department store in 1972. Although she said she wants her job back, her termination letter stated that she is no longer eligible to work at Wells Fargo, the Journal Sentinel said.
The letter from an outsourced background check company states that she was fined $50 for the first offense and had one year of probation for the second theft.
“Due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage has been performing a thorough background check on all mortgage team members that includes a fingerprint check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2010 on new employees, and on existing employees since last year,” a Wells Fargo spokesman told the newspaper. “Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust.”
The letter does not accuse Quesada of lying to Wells Fargo about the shoplifting incidents. When she first applied, she remembers only being asked if she had more serious felonies, which she said she did not, the Journal Sentinel reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
She wasn’t fired for shoplifting, she was fired for lying.
I won’t defend her on the thefts of course.
That said, 40 year old shoplifting charges for small amounts when you were stupid and young, should not disqualify you for a job you’ve got 40 years down the road. Especially one you are doing well in and the employer has not found you are doing any criminal acts against them.
I understand the stigma associated with criminal records is there for a reason and certain jobs do require spotless records but most don’t. Shoplifting charges from 40 years ago shouldn’t tank a person’s job unless the company believes or has evidence the person is involved in criminal acts against the company now.
Not necessarily lying. If they asked her about felonies, this would not have been a felony. I predict this one ends in a lawsuit, reinstatement, back pay and a huge cash penalty.
Financial companies, especially those involving handling of cash, have to be more strict than most other companies.
When I first saw this I made a wild-ass-guess that this is a back door method to get rid of employees that are close to retirement.
40 yearold shoplifting charge?
Just plain foolish. It doesn’t matter how much you want to lean on the “it’s the rules” excuse, this was a shallow reason to fire a good employee. I can only imagine some 29 year old middle management rube doing something like this.
A) It's a federal law
B) The Democrats passed it
C) Most of Congress couldn't work for a financial institution under this rule
Unintended consequences and irony.
I suspect Sra. Quesada voted for “Esperanza y Cambio”.....well she got it.
Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone to question the integrity of bank employees while management steals money from the taxpayers via bailouts.
I wonder if this is part of the Dodd/Frank law.
This woman is screwed. She was fired and is not eligible to be re-hired. Gonna’ be tough finding a new job. But Wells-Fargo will only state her employment dates and may say she isn’t available for re-hire. The woman is the one who told the world she’d been fired.
I agree with you. I won’t do business with B of A and I long ago ceased to do business with Wells.
Especially now when employers Google her name, articles like this will come up....not exactly a smart move taking it to the press.
What was the status of an 18 yr. old girl in Wis. 40 yrs. ago?
Would it matter if she was charged as a minor in these cases?
That depends on what “the” (see Edwards defense)law “is” (see the X pres.)
I think they are just finding any reason to cut cost. If they fire for some distant violation I believe they can revoke retirement, etc..
Let’s put that into place for all elected politicians.
When you parse words long enough everyone is guilty of something without even knowing it. Depending on what the word “it” means.
Yes.
I know of a very good experienced mortgage underwriter who was also let go in a similar way.
It really stinks; people have put this stuff behind them years and decades ago.
It's one thing if someone was involved in financial dishonesty.
Quite another if they were caught with a joint when they were 18 back in 1979 and they are underwriting loans today.
I understand the stigma associated with criminal records is there for a reason and certain jobs do require spotless records but most don’t. Shoplifting charges from 40 years ago shouldn’t tank a person’s job unless the company believes or has evidence the person is involved in criminal acts against the company now.
Recently, I saw an article claiming a member of Obama’s cabinet stated that Obama wanted businesses to “stop discriminating against persons with criminal records.”
When ever Obama is about to seize power, the media seems to run stories that support his claims.
This is Bank of America, so whatever it is, they’re probably in the wrong.
You're an effing fool. You think that a 58 year old woman is a criminal because she shoplifted some nick nacks when she was a teenager? Get back in your hole and never bother anybody again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.