Written by Exclusive: Former City employee “Barbara Wagner” breaks silence over Citibank’s alleged use of NDAs, HR misconduct, and data breaches to suppress sexual harassment claims — raising questions over FCA and Tribunal complicity.
A whistleblower formerly employed at Citibank’s London office has accused the banking giant of systemic cover-ups, legal retaliation, and data protection breaches after she raised complaints of workplace sexual harassment and misconduct by a senior colleague.
Writing under the pseudonym Barbara Wagner, the former sales employee alleges that Citibank’s internal HR and legal teams protected the perpetrator, misled employment tribunal proceedings, and later disclosed her confidential data to assist a retaliatory claim by her alleged harasser — all despite a signed non-disclosure agreement.
“I want to expose how they silence every complainer,” Wagner said. “Citibank claims to stand for inclusion and equality, but behind closed doors it’s lawyers, lies, and NDAs.”
Her case is now the subject of a police investigation, and she retains court-granted anonymity in all criminal and civil proceedings. Wagner, a pseudonym long used for her blogging and public writing, has shared her experience in a detailed exposé titled “Me v. Citibank” published on Medium earlier this year (Wagner 2025).
From harassment to forced settlement
Wagner joined Citibank in 2017, working on the rates trading floor. She describes a culture rife with gender imbalance and sexual objectification. In her post, she recounts how a male colleague once propositioned her for sex in the middle of the trading floor, and how a later relationship with a senior executive — formed during the 2020 lockdown — led to the non-consensual circulation of a bikini photo of her to other Citi and JP Morgan staff.
After she suffered a miscarriage, the executive abruptly ended the relationship in a torrent of verbal abuse. Her subsequent formal complaint to HR about the harassment and photo distribution was, according to Wagner, deliberately mishandled. “They closed it in days,” she said. “They actively misrepresented facts to protect him.”
Citibank, she alleges, quickly pushed for a confidential settlement. In 2023, Wagner agreed to a payout of £80,000 — but only after Citibank insisted she drop all claims, including a separate harassment case, and sign an NDA preventing any future legal action against Citibank or its executives.
Crucially, the perpetrator was explicitly named in that NDA as a “protected person”, which Wagner says created a perverse legal asymmetry: while she was gagged from speaking, he retained institutional and legal support.
Tribunal conduct and erased findings
What followed raises serious questions about judicial handling. Wagner filed an employment tribunal claim in case 3205586/2021, and on 6 March 2023, during a costs hearing, the judge verbally acknowledged that the distribution of the bikini photo constituted sexual harassment.
However, Wagner says this oral finding was removed from the written judgment following pressure from the perpetrator’s legal team. The same judge later denied ever making the remark, prompting Wagner to record a subsequent hearing where the judge reversed her own conclusion. Wagner’s formal request for a transcript was refused — despite the judge acknowledging that the hearing had been recorded.
She has obtained documents showing the respondent’s barrister asked the Tribunal to withhold publication of the judgment, citing reputational risk to the accused. “They submitted four dishonest testimonies,” she said, “and the Tribunal helped them keep it out of the public record.”
Citibank lawyer disclosed confidential data
Following the settlement, Wagner was shocked to discover that Citibank’s Managing Director of Legal, Emma Nelson, had provided her personal data — including HR reports and sensitive medical records — to the legal team representing her alleged harasser.
This disclosure, Wagner says, was made without her consent and in breach of the NDA. When she questioned it, Citibank falsely claimed the Tribunal had requested the documents. Wagner has written proof this was untrue, and she filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
In 2024, Bloomberg journalists questioned Citibank about this disclosure. They reportedly asked what tribunal order mandated the release of Wagner’s private HR documents to a third party. Citibank, according to Wagner, “had no answer”.
“The Tribunal never requested anything,” she said. “Citibank knew I couldn’t sue them anymore after I settled, so they did it to help him. They didn’t care what damage it caused me.”
Weaponised NDAs and regulatory inaction
Wagner’s account suggests the use of non-disclosure agreements as a tool for silencing complainants is widespread. “I know for sure every large bank and corporation does this,” she said. “BlackRock forced me into an NDA too.”
Her comments come amid growing pressure in the UK to ban NDAs in harassment and discrimination cases. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner recently announced plans to outlaw such gagging clauses, stating, “No one should suffer in silence” (The Guardian 2025).
Wagner supports the reforms, but says they must go further. She argues that private hearings in harassment cases should be outlawed, and permanent restrictive reporting orders — often imposed on FCA-regulated professionals — must be banned. “In my case, the Tribunal helped him deceive the FCA. He lied in his mandatory disclosures, which is a criminal offence, and now he’s cleared to manage public pension savings.”
Despite submitting detailed complaints to the FCA, Wagner says the regulator took no action.
Broader pattern: silence and complicity
Wagner’s case echoes other allegations emerging from Citibank globally. In 2024, Citigroup managing director Ardith Lindsey filed a U.S. lawsuit alleging a “pervasive” culture of harassment and gender discrimination, particularly in Citi’s equities division (Reuters 2024). Citi’s legal teams have consistently denied wrongdoing, while internal leadership maintains that all complaints are investigated thoroughly.
But Wagner’s experience suggests otherwise. “Citibank must be named,” she said. “They lie about their culture and silence people who speak up. I’ve reconciled with the consequences of going public. It’s the only way these stories get heard.”
She hopes others will follow suit. “I haven’t heard from others yet, but I will. I know I’m not the only one.”
Sources:
- Wagner, B. (2025). Me v. Citibank. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@cinderellaofthecity/me-vs-citibank-063b39a71a46 [Accessed 10 Jul. 2025].
- Interview with Barbara Wagner, email correspondence with Legal Lens, 12–13 Jul. 2025.
- The Guardian (2025). UK bosses to be banned from using NDAs to cover up misconduct at work. [online] 7 Jul. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com.
- Reuters (2024). Citi failed to protect managing director from sexual harassment, lawsuit claims. [online] 23 Apr. Available at: https://www.reuters.com.
Disclaimer
The views and allegations presented in this article are based on the personal testimony and documentation provided by the whistleblower writing under the pseudonym “Barbara Wagner.” All individuals and organisations named in this piece are entitled to respond. This article is published in the public interest to inform debate around the use of non-disclosure agreements, regulatory accountability, and institutional responses to workplace harassment.
The publisher has taken reasonable steps to verify the factual basis of the material but does not accept liability for the accuracy or truth of any personal statements made by the source. Nothing in this article constitutes legal, financial, or psychological advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional counsel where appropriate.
If any party believes a factual error or misrepresentation has been made, please contact the publisher with supporting information. Corrections will be considered in line with journalistic standards.