A data scientist has filed a federal lawsuit against John Hancock Life Insurance Company, alleging the insurer retaliated against her and discriminated based on national origin after she raised concerns about unequal treatment in the workplace.
Dr. Saeedeh D. Shekarpour, an Iranian-American with a Ph.D., lodged her complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 17, 2026. The case centers on a timeline that Shekarpour argues reveals retaliatory intent: a documented history of strong performance and recognition, followed by a sudden performance improvement plan (PIP) and termination.
According to the complaint, Shekarpour received a “HIGHLY EFFECTIVE” rating in her December 2024 year-end review. Her manager, an assistant vice president in Advanced Analytics, described her as “an invaluable asset” and noted she was pursuing “a future role as a technical leader.” Between February and June 11, 2025, the same manager awarded Shekarpour five formal recognition awards. One award, dated June 11, 2025, praised her “thoughtful feedback on how our team can work better together.”
The complaint alleges that Shekarpour raised concerns about unequal treatment in writing on June 5, 2025, and verbally on June 10, 2025. She argues these actions are protected under Title VII’s opposition clause, which shields employees who object to practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory. Just five weeks after her June 10 complaint, the same AVP placed her on a PIP, citing deficiencies in SQL competency, data proficiency, and professional conduct—issues that, the filing says, had never appeared in any formal review during her more than two years at the company.
Shekarpour was terminated on September 4, 2025, less than two months after the PIP began. The termination letter offered no performance reason, stating only that John Hancock “has elected to terminate your at-will employment.” The complaint alleges the PIP was based on a “one-sided account” from her direct manager, a lead data scientist who had praised her work in writing weeks earlier. Shekarpour claims she was held to different standards than colleagues of other national origins.
On the night of her termination, Shekarpour emailed the company’s director of employee relations and copied senior leadership, including the chief marketing officer. The reply, according to the filing, was: “I did receive your email. We will be in touch after reviewing your concerns.” Shekarpour alleges no meaningful investigation followed.
Representing herself, Shekarpour brings claims of retaliation, discrimination, and hostile work environment under Title VII and Massachusetts Chapter 151B. She seeks back pay, front pay, lost pension and incentive pay, and punitive damages. She previously filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a Notice of Rights on April 6, 2026.
This case echoes other recent retaliation lawsuits in the financial sector. For instance, a former Citi managing director alleged retaliation after raising concerns about vetting a Trump account. Similarly, a Wells Fargo auditor sued over an ADA violation related to remote work denial. These cases highlight the legal risks employers face when performance actions follow protected activity.
