A former bank employee claims she was subjected to escalating discipline, denial of leave, and ultimately termination after reporting race and national origin discrimination at her workplace. The allegations are detailed in a complaint filed by Remedios Jhoi Miller on March 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Synovus Bank.
According to the filing, Miller served as a Relationship Banker at Synovus Bank’s Calhoun, Georgia branch from September 12, 2023 until her termination on June 10, 2025. She alleges that between February and May 2025 she submitted multiple formal complaints to management and Human Resources about race-based discrimination and unequal enforcement of workplace policies involving management personnel Shannon Bunch and Laura Braddy. Miller states that she also reported these concerns through the Synovus Employee Ethics Hotline and later filed a Charge of Discrimination and Retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The complaint asserts that after Synovus Bank became aware of Miller’s protected activity—including her internal complaints and EEOC charge—she was subjected to what she describes as “heightened scrutiny,” clustered disciplinary actions, stricter enforcement of workplace policies, and denial of leave such as bereavement leave. Miller claims that similarly situated employees supervised by the same decision-makers were not disciplined for comparable conduct. The document further alleges that “Defendant further disclosed Plaintiff’s EEOC filing and engaged in retaliatory conduct toward a cooperating witness.”
Miller details that on May 23, 2025, Human Resources acknowledged receipt of her Ethics Hotline complaint but deemed it “unsubstantiated.” Shortly thereafter, she reports being disciplined under standards not applied to other employees before being terminated on June 10, 2025. The complaint notes: “The reasons asserted by Defendant for Plaintiff’s termination were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s documented performance record and prior merit-based recognition.” In August 2025—after her termination—managers allegedly disclosed Miller’s EEOC charge during a staff meeting.
The legal filing also raises concerns about potential evidence destruction during the investigation period: “Upon information and belief, Defendant instructed a cooperating witness to delete emails and documents relating to Plaintiff and the EEOC investigation during the pendency of that investigation.” Additionally, it is alleged that an employee who cooperated with Miller’s case was terminated after issuance of her Notice of Right to Sue.
Miller brings several counts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claims retaliation for engaging in protected activity (Count I), post-charge retaliation (Count II), and retaliation against a cooperating witness (Count III). According to the complaint: “As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer loss of income, loss of employment benefits, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.” She argues these actions would dissuade any reasonable employee from reporting discrimination or participating in investigations.
For relief, Miller requests judgment in her favor on all claims; back pay; front pay; compensation for emotional distress; reputational harm; punitive damages pursuant to federal law; costs associated with this action; reasonable attorney’s fees; injunctive relief; equitable relief; as well as any other remedy deemed appropriate by the court. She has demanded a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Remedios Jhoi Miller is representing herself in this matter as plaintiff pro se. The case is identified as Civil Action File No.: 4:26-cv-00067-WMR.
Source: 426cv00067_Remedios_Jhoi_v_Stnovus_Bank_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
