And when he challenged the decision, he claims his career at the bank came to an abrupt end.
The dispute has now reached federal court, raising serious questions about whether corporate diversity initiatives are being applied fairly to every employee.
A Family Emergency Turns Into a Career-Ending Dispute
Robert Zullo spent more than a decade working in Bank of America’s compliance and operational risk department in North Carolina.
After years of service, he found himself facing a deeply personal challenge.
His mother was seriously ill, and he wanted to spend more time near her during the final stages of her life.
In 2024, Zullo requested permission to perform his duties from a location closer to his mother.
He wasn’t asking for a promotion, a salary increase, or a new position.
He wanted the flexibility to continue working while helping care for a dying family member.
According to his lawsuit, Bank of America rejected the request.
But the refusal was only the beginning.
Zullo alleges that his efforts to challenge the decision led to further workplace problems, ultimately leaving him with little choice but to resign.
On October 23, he brought his allegations before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
His lawsuit accuses the bank of discrimination based on both race and age.
The allegations have not been established in court.
The Alleged Double Standard at the Center of the Lawsuit
What makes Zullo’s case particularly controversial is his claim that other employees received the flexibility he was denied.
According to the complaint, younger workers who were not White were permitted to work remotely or relocate their work locations “without issue.”
Zullo alleges that he sought comparable treatment but encountered resistance.
If those claims are substantiated, they could raise difficult questions about how Bank of America applies its workplace policies.
Employers generally have discretion when evaluating remote-work arrangements. Different job responsibilities, performance requirements, and operational needs can justify different decisions.
But federal discrimination laws prohibit employers from making those decisions because of an employee’s race or protected age.
That distinction is central to Zullo’s legal challenge.
His complaint suggests that his race and age influenced the bank’s response to his request.
The case also raises another question: Did the bank retaliate against him after he objected to what he believed was discriminatory treatment?
Zullo says his complaints were followed by circumstances that forced him out of the company.
Whether the evidence supports those allegations will be a key issue as the litigation proceeds.
A Supreme Court Ruling Could Change the Legal Landscape
Zullo’s lawsuit arrives amid a significant shift in how federal courts evaluate discrimination complaints brought by members of majority groups.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.
The ruling rejected an additional evidentiary requirement that some federal courts had imposed on employees alleging discrimination against members of majority groups.
Under that approach, certain plaintiffs had been required to demonstrate special background circumstances suggesting that their employer was likely to discriminate against a majority group.
The Supreme Court concluded that Title VII does not authorize that heightened standard.
The decision reinforced a straightforward legal principle: federal employment discrimination protections apply regardless of an individual’s race.
That includes White employees who believe they were treated unfairly because of their racial identity.
The ruling does not automatically establish discrimination in cases like Zullo’s.
He must still provide evidence supporting his allegations and satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
Nevertheless, the decision makes clear that courts cannot impose an extra threshold simply because a discrimination plaintiff belongs to a majority group.
For corporations operating extensive diversity and inclusion programs, that clarification carries important implications.
The Trump Administration Has Put Corporate DEI Policies Under Scrutiny
The lawsuit also comes as the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Vice President JD Vance has been among the prominent Republicans arguing that certain DEI practices can result in unfair treatment of White men.
Supporters of such programs maintain that properly designed initiatives can expand opportunity and address longstanding barriers without discriminating against anyone.
Critics argue that some employers have crossed the line from encouraging diversity into making employment decisions based on protected characteristics.
Federal law provides the framework for resolving that disagreement.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has warned employers that discrimination does not become lawful merely because it is presented under a different corporate label.
“It doesn’t matter if you call that DEI or belonging or ‘EO’ or anything: if it functions like that, it’s illegal.”
That warning highlights an important distinction.
Companies may pursue lawful efforts to broaden recruitment and improve workplace opportunity.
They cannot use race as an unlawful basis for deciding who receives employment benefits, assignments, promotions, or other workplace opportunities.
Zullo’s allegations could put those principles to the test.
Bank of America Faces Questions About Its Workplace Practices
For a financial institution as large as Bank of America, the controversy presents a potentially uncomfortable contrast.
The company has publicly emphasized workplace fairness and equal opportunity.
Yet Zullo’s complaint alleges that those principles were not reflected in the way his request was handled.
His lawsuit invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race and other protected characteristics.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects covered workers who are 40 or older from unlawful age-based discrimination.
At 54, Zullo falls within that protected age category.
But his age and race alone do not prove that discrimination occurred.
The court will need to consider whether similarly situated employees were treated differently, whether the bank had legitimate reasons for its decisions, and whether any unlawful bias or retaliation can be established.
Those details could determine the outcome.
According to the account of the lawsuit, Bank of America had not filed a public response when the allegations were reported.
That means the bank’s full legal defense was not available in the supplied reporting.
A Case That Could Resonate Beyond One Bank
The controversy is about more than a single employee’s request to work closer to an ailing parent.
It touches on an increasingly contentious question in corporate America: Are workplace fairness policies being enforced consistently, regardless of an employee’s background?
Zullo believes the answer in his case was no.
His lawsuit alleges that younger colleagues of other races received accommodations that were withheld from him, and that speaking out about the discrepancy contributed to the end of his employment.
Bank of America will have an opportunity to contest those claims through the legal process.
For now, the allegations remain unproven, and the lawsuit itself is not evidence that the bank violated federal law.
Still, the case underscores a principle that employers across the country cannot afford to overlook.
Equal opportunity cannot be limited to whichever employees happen to fit a company’s preferred diversity narrative.
The same anti-discrimination laws protect everyone.
And if Zullo can demonstrate that Bank of America treated him differently because of his race or age, the bank could face serious legal consequences.
The larger question is whether corporate America’s promises of fairness extend equally to employees who believe they have been excluded by the very policies intended to promote inclusion.
That is the issue Zullo is asking a federal court to examine.
