A lawsuit involving a senior executive at JPMorgan Chase is raising a question many professionals don’t really think about until something goes wrong: can you be held personally liable for how you use your authority at work? For anyone managing people, that risk isn’t abstract. In the right circumstances, it can become very real.
The case centres on Lorna Hajdini, an executive director at the bank, who has been accused in a New York lawsuit of sexual abuse, coercion, and racial harassment by a junior employee identified as “John Doe.”
Hajdini denies the allegations, and the bank has said an internal review did not find evidence to support them. Even so, the way the claim is framed matters. The claimant says the alleged conduct was tied to her senior position and influence over his career, which shifts the focus away from isolated behaviour and toward how power itself may have been used.
That distinction is where the legal weight sits. Claims framed around coercion tend to be treated more seriously because they suggest authority may have been used as pressure rather than simply misused in a personal sense.
In employment law, that can overlap with concepts like hostile work environment, retaliation, and what is often called quid pro quo harassment, where professional consequences are linked directly or indirectly to personal compliance.
The question is not just whether something inappropriate happened, but whether it changed the conditions of someone’s working life or made refusal feel risky. If a court accepts that framing, the legal exposure widens.
Most people assume that in situations like this, the company carries the legal burden. And in many cases, that is true. Employers are generally responsible for the systems they put in place and for the conduct of those acting on their behalf.
When a senior manager is involved, the law often treats their actions as those of the organisation itself, which is why companies can face liability even when senior individuals are the ones accused of wrongdoing.
But that is not the full picture. Where allegations involve intentional conduct or an alleged abuse of authority, it is possible for claims to be brought against the individual as well. That tends to happen where the behaviour is said to go beyond the normal scope of managerial duties or crosses into personal wrongdoing. In those situations, authority does not necessarily protect someone; it can become part of the reason they are exposed.
The way the Hajdini claim has been structured reflects that tension. It is not presented as a single incident but as a pattern, with the claimant alleging that professional power and personal conduct became intertwined over time, reinforced by the perceived risk to his career.
Whether that is ultimately proven is a matter for the court, but legally it changes how the case is analysed. It moves the issue from poor judgment to a potential misuse of delegated authority, and that is where both individual and corporate liability can come into play.
There is also the procedural detail that the claimant has chosen to proceed anonymously. Filing as “John Doe” is not unusual in cases involving sensitive allegations, but it does affect how the case unfolds. Courts have to balance the claimant’s need for privacy with the defendant’s right to respond fully, and that can shape early stages of the litigation. It does not decide the outcome, but it can influence the tone and pressure around the case.
For JPMorgan Chase, the situation is not just about the specific allegations. The bank has said its internal review found no supporting evidence, but internal findings do not settle the issue in court. Claimants can and often do challenge whether investigations were thorough or independent enough.
If a court were to find that reasonable steps were not taken to prevent or address alleged misconduct, liability could still arise. That is why internal processes reporting lines, escalation procedures, compliance checks, often end up being examined just as closely as the underlying allegations.
Step back from the details, and a broader pattern starts to come into view. Modern workplaces rely heavily on delegated authority. Managers make decisions that shape careers, pay, and progression. That concentration of power is part of how organisations function, but it also creates legal risk. Employment law does not prevent people from exercising authority; it sets limits on how that authority can be used.
For managers, the risk rarely sits in obvious or extreme situations. It tends to develop in the grey areas—where boundaries are unclear and conduct feels informal at the time. What may be seen internally as part of workplace culture can, in a different context, be interpreted as pressure, particularly where there is a link to professional consequences.
Claims in this area often do not arise from a single incident. They build over time, shaped by patterns of interaction and how those interactions are perceived. In that context, a lack of clarity offers little protection. It can, in some cases, make it easier for a claim to take hold.
For those in positions of authority, personal exposure is closely linked to how professional boundaries are maintained in practice.