In its response to the civil lawsuit, SFFCU denied all allegations, asserting that the credit union maintains and enforces strict anti-retaliation policies and that Oliver’s termination was unrelated to any protected activities.

Although SFFCU initially moved the lawsuit to federal court, it later agreed with Oliver’s former attorney to return it to state court. Oliver allegedly withdrew from that agreement and is now seeking to keep the case in federal court.

The roots of the 28-page lawsuit can be traced back to events from two years ago. Oliver described his working relationship with the Board as positive until 2023 when it dramatically deteriorated after Kim was elected Board chair.

The former CEO claimed Kim recruited nine Board members who are her friends or associates and work for the city of San Francisco’s human resources division. Kim previously served as director of human resources for the City and County of San Francisco for more than 12 years and is currently working as chief human resources officer for the San Francisco Department of Health, her LinkedIn profile showed.

“Ms. Kim also began to treat SFFCU as if it was her own fiefdom in disregard to NCUA rules and regulations,” Oliver alleged. “Further, as time progressed, Ms. Kim became rude and aggressive in Board meetings and other interactions. She was condescending towards others who had different points of view, which fostered a chaotic environment — so chaotic that four seasoned financial professional Board Members resigned rather than serve with her. As such, the Board was left with very few experienced members and not one who was working in finance.”

Oliver claimed Kim and most of the Board and Supervisory Committee members lacked the requisite basic knowledge of finance and accounting practices, which allegedly violated the NCUA’s rules. Additional claimed failings included inaccurate meeting minutes, inadequate performance reviews, poor attendance, flawed compensation oversight, compromised supervisory committee independence and hiring a consultant without due diligence.

He also alleged Board conflicts of interest related to SFFCU’s failed $28 million lawsuit involving the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) taxi medallion program.

In 2010, SFMTA began selling transferable taxi medallions for $250,000 each. SFFCU financed over 700 medallion purchases, totaling more than $125 million in loans. After he was appointed CEO in June 2017, Oliver found these taxi medallion loans were doomed because of the largely unregulated ridesharing services that decimated the regulated taxi industry, leading to widespread loan defaults and foreclosures.

By the third quarter of 2020, SFFCU lost $33.5 million — by far the largest loss among the nation's credit unions at that time.

“This (tax medallion) program was the single largest financial issue for SFFCU,” Oliver stated. “The majority of the Board had a conflict of interest, since they are currently worked for or had previously worked for or had close ties with the City.”

Oliver claimed that an unnamed credit union officer mistakenly advised the board that SFFCU was obligated to buy the tax medallion loans back at par even though they were severely impaired.

Oliver said he immediately stopped this practice and recommended that SFFCU submit a bond claim.

“The board, however, rejected his recommendation, and instead, without (Oliver) present, decided to sue the SF [M] TA for breach of contract,” the lawsuit alleged.

Oliver also accused the Board of defamation, citing a Feb. 20, 2024 CU Times article that quoted SFFCU’s prepared statement about Oliver’s termination.

“SFFCU’s ‘Prepared Statement’ asserting that SFFCU had to terminate Plaintiff to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities in serving the best interest of the membership, as republished in the article, was false,” Oliver alleged. “In truth, Plaintiff was terminated without cause (according to his termination letter) and in actuality due to retaliation. Further the prepared statement falsely stated or led the reader to believe, directly or by implication, that Plaintiff had breached his fiduciary duties to SFFCU or had otherwise engaged in wrongdoing justifying his termination.”

The lawsuit highlighted a paragraph of the Board’s prepared statement published in the CU Times article that read: “Last week, the SFFCU board of directors announced the departure of Jonathan Oliver as the credit union’s CEO following a unanimous decision by the board to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities in serving the best interests of the membership.”

In response, SFFCU argued that Oliver cannot claim defamation because the statements were “truthful.”

CU Times is not named as a defendant in Oliver’s lawsuit.

READ MORE: Jonathan Oliver vs. San Francisco Federal Credit Union and San Francisco FCU’s Response to Jonathan Oliver’s Lawsuit.

Peter Strozniak can be reached at [email protected].