JPMorgan conducted ‘fake’ interviews of Black candidates, lawsuit alleges

Summary

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in December 2025 alleges that JPMorgan Chase subjected Black applicants to perfunctory or “fake” interviews as part of a performative approach to diversity, equity and inclusion. The plaintiff — a candidate with more than two decades of experience in financial services — says he was not asked for a resume, received superficial interviews and was passed over for a less experienced White candidate. The complaint argues the bank’s actions reflect a decades-long, systemic pattern of race discrimination and includes claims under federal and state civil rights laws, including Title VII.

Key Points

The lawsuit (Jackson v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.) alleges JPMorgan held “fake” interviews for Black candidates that lacked genuine evaluation.
The plaintiff says he was not asked for a resume and was ultimately passed over for a White candidate with less experience.
The complaint frames the conduct as part of an alleged decades-long, systemic pattern of discrimination affecting Black customers, employees and applicants.
The plaintiff claims such perfunctory interviews are used to appear to honour DEI while lacking a real commitment, causing disparate harm to Black applicants.
The suit includes state and federal civil-rights claims, including under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and seeks class-action status.
The filing notes JPMorgan’s reported retreat from DEI commitments, including renaming its diversity programme from “DEI” to “DOI.”
JPMorgan Chase did not immediately comment on the lawsuit, according to the report.

Content Summary

The plaintiff alleges that in May 2024 an executive recruiter contacted him about a managing director/regional executive role in JPMorgan’s Consumer Banking in Michigan. Despite his long experience and a role similar to his prior job at Bank of America, the bank never requested a resume and conducted interviews the lawsuit describes as perfunctory. The complaint argues these actions are indicative of an institutional culture that pays lip service to diversity while failing to follow through, harming Black applicants and perpetuating unequal hiring outcomes.

The filing contends this is not an isolated incident but part of an “unbroken pattern” of discrimination, and it points to changes in the bank’s public diversity approach — such as renaming DEI programmes — as evidence the company has stepped back from commitments once prioritised when DEI was more in vogue.

Context and Relevance

This story matters to HR leaders, recruiters and legal teams because it raises questions about how large employers implement (or perform) DEI in hiring. If the allegations are proven, the case could influence corporate hiring practices, increase scrutiny of recruiter behaviours and affect how firms document and evaluate candidates. It also highlights legal risk under Title VII and related laws for organisations whose diversity measures are superficial rather than substantive.

More broadly, the lawsuit sits alongside other high-profile cases and research about bias in hiring — including concerns about both human and algorithmic decision-making — reinforcing the need for transparent, documented, and equitable recruitment processes.

Why should I read this?

Because if you work in hiring, compliance or people ops, this is the sort of mess that can blow up into expensive litigation and reputational damage. The piece flags practical red lights — no resume requested, token interviews, apparent backtracking on DEI — that you can check for in your own processes. Quick read, big implications.