A senior JPMorgan Chase executive director has been named in a lawsuit filed in New York alleging a sustained campaign of sexual assault, drugging, and racial abuse against a junior employee, alongside claims that the banking giant retaliated after he raised concerns.
The complaint, brought in the New York County Supreme Court, accuses Lorna Hajdini of coercing a male colleague into non-consensual sexual acts while allegedly using her senior position to threaten his career prospects.
The plaintiff, identified in court filings as John Doe, is seeking damages for emotional distress, lost earnings, and reputational harm. JPMorgan Chase has denied the allegations, stating an internal investigation found no evidence supporting the claims.
JPMorgan Executive Named in Serious Lawsuit Allegations
According to the legal filing cited by the Daily Mail, Lorna Hajdini, an executive director in JPMorgan's Leveraged Finance division, is accused of using her position of authority to exert pressure on a junior employee shortly after he joined the firm in March 2024.
The complaint alleges a pattern of behaviour involving unwanted physical contact, explicit sexual advances, and threats linked to professional advancement. The lawsuit also names JPMorgan Chase as a defendant, alleging the company failed in its duty to protect the employee after he raised concerns internally.
The allegations remain unproven and have not been tested in court.
Claims of Sexual Assault, Drugging, and Racial Abuse
The lawsuit sets out a series of serious allegations, including claims that Hajdini sexually assaulted the employee while the employee resisted and expressed distress. It further alleges she admitted to drugging him with substances, including Rohypnol, in order to facilitate sexual encounters, and that she used racial slurs targeting his ethnicity and family background.
In addition, the filing claims Hajdini accessed the employee's personal banking information without authorisation, allegedly to monitor his movements. These claims are part of the broader civil complaint and have not been independently verified.
Timeline of Events and Alleged Retaliation
Court documents state that the alleged conduct began shortly after the employee joined JPMorgan Chase in March 2024, with the complaint describing a period of escalating harassment over the following months. According to the filing, John Doe submitted an internal report in May 2025 after what he describes as repeated misconduct.
The lawsuit alleges that shortly after raising his concerns, he was placed on involuntary leave and locked out of company systems. It further claims he later received anonymous threatening phone calls, including references to US immigration enforcement.
Alongside these claims, the plaintiff alleges JPMorgan Chase engaged in retaliatory conduct following his report. The filing states he was sidelined from his role and subjected to reputational harm that has affected his ability to secure new employment. His legal team argues that the bank failed to adequately protect him after the complaint was raised, instead taking actions that worsened his professional situation.
JPMorgan Response to Lawsuit
JPMorgan Chase has denied the allegations. A company spokesperson said, 'Following an investigation, we do not believe there is any merit to these claims. While numerous employees cooperated with the investigation, the complainant refused to participate and has declined to provide facts that would be central to support his allegations.'
Hajdini remains employed at the firm and has not issued a public response to the lawsuit at the time of publication.
Damages Sought and Ongoing Legal Proceedings
The lawsuit seeks compensation for lost earnings, emotional distress, and reputational damage, as well as punitive damages. It also calls for reforms to JPMorgan Chase's internal reporting and workplace safety procedures.
The plaintiff's attorney states that he has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and continues to experience significant personal and professional disruption. The case remains active before the New York County Supreme Court, with no findings of liability made at this stage.
