“How were employees instructed to determine those circumstances?”
“Professional judgment.”
“Based on what?”
“Available information.”
“What information?”
“Customer history, account records, transaction patterns.”
Jordan nodded.
“Could appearance be considered?”
Sarah hesitated.
“The policy refers to customer presentation.”
“Yes. It does.”
He approached the table.
“What does customer presentation mean?”
She glanced toward her attorney.
“I would interpret it in context.”
“Clothing?”
“Potentially.”
“Address?”
“Depending on risk information.”
“Occupation?”
“Yes.”
“Would a customer's race be an appropriate indicator of whether a check was legitimate?”
“No.”
“Did Mr. Coleman's race influence your decision?”
Sarah immediately answered.
“No.”
Jordan did not argue.
Instead, he played a brief excerpt from the recording.
Sarah's voice filled the room.
A man walks in here dressed like he couldn't afford lunch and expects us to believe he's some kind of technology millionaire?
The recording stopped.
Nobody moved.
Jordan looked at her.
“Is that your voice?”
“Yes.”
“Were you describing an objective defect in the check?”
“No.”
“Were you describing information obtained from the issuing company?”
“No.”
“Were you describing your perception of Mr. Coleman's appearance?”
Sarah stared at the microphone.
“Yes.”
Jordan nodded.
“Thank you.”
He returned to his table.
Then produced a separate record showing how several other large deposits had been handled that day.
The transactions involved different circumstances and could not automatically be treated as identical.
Jordan acknowledged that.
But the available records showed that three white customers whose deposits were subject to the bank's large-transaction process had not been required to submit the same breadth of documentation Sarah demanded from Brandon.
Jordan asked her to explain the differences.
She offered several possible reasons.
Some involved account history.
Some involved transaction type.
But she could not identify a consistent documented standard explaining every discrepancy.
The questions continued.
By the end, Sarah no longer looked angry.
She looked exhausted.
Jordan asked one final question.
“Miss Winters, looking back on March fourteenth, do you believe Brandon Coleman deserved the treatment you gave him?”
Her voice was barely audible.
“No.”
“Would you like to tell him that?”
Sarah looked toward Brandon.
For the first time since the incident, their eyes met.
He did not look away.
She swallowed.
“Mr. Coleman.”
He waited.
“I was wrong to destroy your check. I was wrong to accuse you without verification.”
A pause.
“I'm sorry.”
Brandon nodded once.
He did not smile.
He did not forgive her.
But he acknowledged that she had finally said something she should have said fifty-two minutes into their first encounter.
Something she had taken two months to say.
The truth.
James Anderson testified next.
His voice was composed at first.
He described arriving at the branch.
Seeing Sarah.
Seeing the security officer.
Recognizing Brandon.
Then learning that the check had been destroyed.
Jordan questioned him about the bank's management procedures.
“Mr. Anderson, were you familiar with Sarah Winters's performance evaluations?”
“Yes.”
“Did you approve some of them?”
“Yes.”
“Did those evaluations praise suspicious-transaction escalation?”
“Yes.”
“Did they measure the accuracy of those escalations?”
James hesitated.
“To some extent.”
“Was false-positive customer impact given equivalent weight?”
“Not consistently.”
Jordan nodded.
“Were customer complaints considered when determining whether a manager's fraud-prevention activity was effective?”
“They could be.”