Charlotte exec gets mixed news after Wells Fargo appeals $22M retaliation award
A federal appeals court reduced a former Wells Fargo executive’s $22 million award to $18 million after the terminated Charlotte supervisor filed a disability discrimination lawsuit.
Read more In NC’s key 2026 elections, can Whatley help Republicans get ‘past the wave’?
On Friday, a three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to accept some of the bank’s arguments while upholding a jury’s finding of unlawful retaliation against Christopher Billesdon, a former employee based in Charlotte. The San Francisco-based bank’s largest employment base is in the Charlotte region.
Wells Fargo declined to comment on the litigation. Billesdon’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
Billesdon worked for Wells Fargo for roughly 25 years, holding roles in Los Angeles and Charlotte. In August 2020, he relocated to Charlotte while serving as head of West Coast asset-backed finance sales in the markets division of Wells Fargo Securities’ Corporate and Investment Bank.
Following a 1990 accident that fractured his spine, Billesdon lives with a paralyzed colon and bladder that requires workplace accommodations and causes severe side effects from medication. According to his lawsuit, the Charlotte office was ill-equipped for his needs because the nearest restroom was on the opposite side of the building from his team.
When Wells Fargo began planning a post-pandemic return to the office, Billesdon requested to continue working remotely. The bank denied his request in December 2021 and fired him two months later — weeks before a mandatory return-to-office policy took effect, according to the lawsuit.
Wells Fargo told Billesdon he was being let go due to “cost-cutting,” he claimed in his suit.
Billesdon filed the suit in March 2023 in a North Carolina federal court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
In July 2024, a jury awarded him $22.1 million, finding the bank liable for failing to provide reasonable accommodation, unlawful retaliation and wrongful discharge under state law. The award included $6 million in back pay, $14 million in future lost earnings for front pay, $100,000 for emotional distress, and $2 million in combined punitive damages.
In August, Wells Fargo asked the court to toss out the decision.
In May 2026, oral arguments were held before the Fouth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wells Fargo argued it should not be liable because Billesdon worked remotely every day before he was fired.
Read more One year later: How Iryna Zarutska’s killing on light rail altered Charlotte
On Friday, the Fourth Circuit rejected the disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate and wrongful discharge claims. The panel ruled that remote work had functioned as an effective accommodation prior to his firing and that Billesdon failed to prove his disability directly caused his termination.
But the court upheld the retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence that managers grew hostile and fired him shortly after he formally requested accommodation.
As a result of dropping the primary discrimination claims, the court eliminated the $2 million in punitive damages and $100,000 for emotional distress. It also agreed that the $6 million back-pay award was unsupported by evidence, reducing it to $4.22 million. This was the maximum backed by expert testimony.
The court upheld the $14 million front-pay award but remanded the issue back to the trial court for further review.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said Billesdon’s health condition had been managed and accommodated for decades without problems. He identified Billesdon’s formal accommodation request, rather than the disability itself, as the event that led to his firing.
“For two decades the disability was known and accommodated, and it never slowed his rise from intern to managing director,” Richardson wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority. “The evidence of animus begins when the request arrives. That sequence supports retaliation, not status discrimination.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Nicole Berner partially dissented, criticizing the decision to overturn parts of the jury’s verdict. She said the court improperly second-guessed the trial court’s factual findings and should have given more weight to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and the company’s motives.
“Though the majority articulates the relevant standards we must apply, it fails to afford the requisite deference to the jury’s conclusions that Wells Fargo discriminated against Billesdon on the basis of his disability,” Berner wrote, adding that appellate judges “cannot substitute our evaluation of the facts for that of the jury.”
Read more Charlotte high school coach resigns before he ever coached a game
This story was originally published August 25, 2026 at 5:05 AM.
