Work at a bank_Scared to file

[Makeit129]

I work at a Bank and currently have 3 accounts with them that will be included in the bankruptcy … I’m scared that I will be fired once I file … has anyone ever experienced a similar situation ? I know there are laws against me being fired for the bankruptcy but I fear that they will find another excuse and use it

[Backagain]

I worked for fidelity investment. I had to sign an employment agreement that was specific that I would not be employable for any number of “ personal financial mismanagement”, including bankruptcy.

do banks have this same thing? Ask personnel to get a copy of all the banks requirements.

[shipo]

I worked for fidelity investment. I had to sign an employment agreement that was specific that I would not be employable for any number of “ personal financial mismanagement”, including bankruptcy.

do banks have this same thing? Ask personnel to get a copy of all the banks requirements.

I worked for a competitor of Fidelity back when I filed for Chapter 13; I don't remember signing anything in my employment agreement regarding bankruptcy, and never a word was said to me when I filed. I wonder if such employment language was specific to Fidelity.

[despritfreya]

"A private employer may not terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against an individual who is or has been a debtor in bankruptcy." 11 USC 525(b).

Now, can a private employer refuse to hire? Maybe. I have not researched this. My gut tells me the answer really is "no" based upon the way the statute is written ("cannot discriminate with respect to employment" is a very broad statement). Can a private employer fire for some other reason? Yes. Can the private employer fire because one files bk? No.

I have never had a client who worked/works in the banking/financial sector have this issue and I can tell you that over the years I have represented many such clients. IMO, this is not something OP needs to worry about regardless of the amount owed to the banking institution.

Des.

[justbroke]

For those with federal government security clearances, they do follow the rule under 11 USC 525(a). Just as Des points out, they can't fire you, or refuse to hire you, solely because of the bankruptcy. The reason that they fire (or won't hire) you is related to a failure to maintain financial responsibility. Personally, I think that the "financial responsibility" issue is second only to felonies. A failure to maintain financial responsibility is a major factor in character when it comes to security clearances and positions of public trust.

For what it's worth, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (in which I live) has ruled on despritfreya 's 525(b) question. They answered "yes" to the question. A private employer can deny hiring someone on the basis of bankruptcy. The circuit affirmed the US District Court's ruling on the issue. The court essentially said that Congress would have used the same words in 525(b) as they did in 525(a), if they wanted to prevent employment discrimination related to hiring a person who had filed bankruptcy under Title 11.

(Since OP is in the 9th Circuit, don't take my circuit's ruling as the law of the land.)

Interestingly, I have never had any issues with my background checks when working on sensitive banking projects even while I was in my Chapter 13. The only background check that scared me was my periodic re-investigation for my government clearances.

[Backagain]

I think it was somehow involved with the SEC. I had to also have a security clearance…finger print, etc.
come to think of it…..I also know that the Race Tracks in this country are very specific that you can lose your license for “financial irresponsibility”. No license = no access to the track = no job.

[justbroke]

A failure to maintain "financial responsibility" is a gotcha for anyone holding specialized licensing or positions of trust -- especially those in a fiduciary capacity. However, filing bankruptcy could be considered financial responsibility in that the debtor seeks to deal with his/her inability to meet (or address) their financial responsibilities. I have read many federal security clearance appeals (including public trust) where the appeals committee found that a Chapter 13 was sufficient to address the financial concerns.

For security clearances they are worried that a person would be vulnerable from foreign actors that offer money for deeds. I would never dare do such a thing, but the power-that-be believe that it is serious enough to revoke or not grant security clearances to those who are financially... unable to meet the financial demands of their responsibilities.

(The most significant financial responsibility category is taxes. That is where they did a deep dive on me. They want to collect taxes and they will make sure you pay them if you are a federal employee.)

I can tell you with certainty that 2 bankruptcies within 8 years is quite the deathknell for federal jobs requiring security clearances. They won't deny or fire you because of the bankruptcy itself. They'll said that it is "obvious the debtor did not learn from the first bankruptcy and their financial history fails to demonstrate that they are financially responsible." (I just quoted that for impact... not a real quote.) It's not the bankruptcy itself, rather the reason for the multiple bankruptcies.