Dec 25, 2014/Bloomberg

Bank of America Corp. maliciously fired a distressed-debt banker to deprive her of a bonus, a Hong Kong judge ruled, awarding Sunny Tadjudin $500,000 after a seven-year legal battle.

Tadjudin’s manager, John Liptak, was determined to fire her despite her improvement in a performance plan, and his malice can be attributed to the bank, High Court Judge Anthony To said in a 141-page ruling issued yesterday. Still, Tadjudin will receive only a fraction of the amount she requested.

Tadjudin, 51, who worked for the bank’s Asian distressed-debt trading group, had sought bonuses totaling $3.7 million after being fired in 2007 following what she said were irrational and arbitrary performance ratings. To ruled against her claims for higher 2005 and 2006 bonuses than she received.

“It may be argued that a prestigious bank as Bank of America would not do anything so mean or so lacking in commercial sense as to dismiss a performing employee to avoid paying her bonus,” To said. While that wasn’t the intention of senior management, “that was what the bank did through the hands of John Liptak and with his intention,” the judge said.

To awarded Tadjudin, a Chinese Indonesian who has separately brought a sexual discrimination claim against the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank, 85 percent of her legal costs.

Paul Scanlon, a spokesman in Hong Kong for Bank of America, declined to comment. No contact information was available for Liptak, who was fired in 2009, the bank’s lawyer earlier told the court. Liptak had denied engineering Tadjudin’s dismissal.

Christmas Eve

Tadjudin’s lawyers didn’t immediately respond to e-mails on Christmas Eve requesting comment. She had generated 76 percent of her group’s profits in the period she was suing for, the court heard in January.

By the time of her termination, two-thirds of the year had lapsed with Tadjudin having made significant profit contributions, To said.

“John Liptak and the bank must have foreseen that she would be awarded substantial bonus for 2007,” he said.

Tadjudin’s performance improvement plan was “nothing but a charade orchestrated by John Liptak to bring about the plaintiff’s termination,” To wrote.

Rejecting Tadjudin’s claim that her performance evaluation in 2005 was lowered in retaliation for complaining that Liptak transferred a losing position from his portfolio to hers, To said while Liptak “most probably wanted to loss dump on the plaintiff,” he aborted his attempt and the transfer had no effect on her profit figures or bonus.

‘Unreasonable Vulnerability’

The court should address the “unreasonable vulnerability” of bankers, who get the bulk of their pay through discretionary performance bonuses and must remain employed to get the payments, Tadjudin’s lawyer, Graham Harris, had told the judge in February.

That discretion “has to be exercised in a serious and bona fide manner,” To said in his ruling.

In 2010, Tadjudin had won a bid to have the case heard at trial, when an appeals court overturned a dismissal of her claim.

The case is Tadjudin Sunny v. Bank of America, National Association, HCA322/2008 in Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance. The discrimination case is DCEO4/2009 in Hong Kong District Court.