EEOC Sues Tucoemas FCU for Alleged Sex & Age Discrimination Practices

Three former women executives of a California credit union claimed they were discriminated against because of their sex and age when they applied for the CEO position for which a younger man was hired who did not meet the minimum qualifications.

What’s more, two of the executives said the $241 million Tucoemas Federal Credit Union in Visalia, Calif. retaliated against them for filing the EEOC discrimination charge.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Fresno said it conducted an inquiry and found reasonable cause that the credit union violated federal sex and age discrimination laws and then retaliated against two of the three former credit union professionals.

The EEOC said it was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement with the credit union, which led the federal agency to file a  civil rights, employment discrimination lawsuit in Fresno federal court last month on behalf of Sherry Belcher, former CFO, Cynthia Seymour, former vice president of lending and Cindy Summers, former vice president of human resources, for Tucoemas FCU.

In August 2015 when former Tucoemas President/CEO Linda Reese announced her retirement, she encouraged the three women to apply for the job. When they were interviewed for the top post, Belcher was 50, Seymour was 60 and Summers was 55. They all met the minimum qualifications required by the credit union, according to the EEOC complaint.

After the first round of interviews, however, a younger male applicant, Brice Yocum, was selected for the CEO’s position. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that Yocum did not meet the minimum qualifications listed on the credit union’s job posting.

“No reason other than sex and/or age discrimination explains the selection of a younger male applicant as CEO over the charging parties,” the EEOC lawsuit states.

“While neither I nor the credit union are at liberty to speak about matters which are the subject of pending litigation, we are confident that the success which the credit union has realized under Mr. Yocum’s leadership as CEO speaks for itself,” Paul F. Schimley, a Pasadena-based lawyer for Tucoemas FCU, said.

Although Yocum’s executive leadership has nothing to do with the federal complaint, his LinkedIn professional profile shows that he did not hold any executive-level credit union or banking experience at the time he applied for the CEO’s job three years ago. However, Yocum worked with small businesses and nonprofits while he was an attorney for more than five years. He also has several years of management experience from his professional roles as executive director of regional campuses at Fresno Pacific University and as an executive director for a student and community foundation.

He also obtained CUES (Credit Union Executive Society) certifications as a chief executive in May 2019 and as a strategic marketing executive in June 2016.

After Belcher filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in May 2016 when Yocum began his CEO tenure, he asked her whether she was “gunning for him.” He also said he could not work with people he could not trust, according to the EEOC complaint.

Though Belcher told Yocum she was not “gunning for him,” she was later summoned to a supervisory committee meeting. The committee asked why Belcher filed the discrimination complaint, but then someone on the committee said she could lose her job for filing it.

Belcher submitted a resignation letter making clear that she was “concerned on a daily basis about the likelihood of losing [her] job,” the complaint reads.

Soon after Seymour filed her discrimination charge, Yocum allegedly set loan growth goals that she claimed were unattainable. Though she complained that the loan growth goal was unreasonable, Yocum rebuffed her complaints.

At the end of 2016, Yocum conducted a performance review of Seymour suggesting that she lacked the ability to collaborate with others and mentor those under her supervision, though her prior evaluations had no such criticisms.

In February 2017, Seymour was fired because she failed to “unequivocally commit to the selected CEO’s leadership.” She was also directed not to return to work despite her willingness to remain an employee, according the EEOC lawsuit.

“Ms. Seymour and Ms. Belcher were both targeted in response to their filing of charges of discrimination with the commission,” EEOC said. “Both were given unfair and inaccurate performance evaluation, designed to make it appear that they were underperforming and both were repeatedly threatened with termination.”