A former employee has accused a national equity finance firm of unlawful discrimination and retaliation after he was allegedly harassed at work, denied protected medical leave, and ultimately terminated from his position. The complaint was filed by Romeo Malabanan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 19, 2026, naming Point Digital Finance, Inc. as the defendant.
According to the filing, Malabanan began working with Point Digital Finance in March 2021 as an independent contractor before being hired full-time as a Human Resources Business Partner in July 2021. Over the course of his employment, Malabanan received multiple merit-based pay increases and promotions—first to People Partner Manager in September 2024 and then to Senior Manager, People Partner in February 2025. His salary increased from $185,000 to $210,000 per year during this period.
The complaint outlines that Malabanan’s performance met or exceeded expectations throughout his tenure. In early 2025, his manager reportedly commended him for delivering high-priority materials and resolving complex cases. However, issues arose when Malabanan reported experiencing mistreatment by Mawulom Nenonene, identified as Director of Talent Acquisition at Point Digital Finance. The complaint states that Nenonene “frequently singled out Plaintiff, questioned his judgement in front of colleagues…and misrepresented the quality of Plaintiff’s work product.” It further alleges that Nenonene blamed Malabanan for mistakes made by others and raised his voice at him in meetings.
Malabanan claims he formally reported this conduct to the company in January 2025 and disclosed that he had begun seeing a therapist due to workplace harassment. He alleges that no formal investigation was conducted at that time by Point Digital Finance into these complaints.
On May 23, 2025—approximately four months after raising concerns—Malabanan was notified by Shara Klein, Chief People Officer at Point Digital Finance, that his employment would end on or about September 5, 2025. The lawsuit states there were no prior warnings or documented performance issues leading up to this decision. According to the complaint: “Point did not inform Plaintiff that the Company was laying off employees as part of a reduction in force,” nor did it claim financial restructuring or elimination of his position.
At the time of termination notification, Malabanan was forty-nine years old. He alleges that he was replaced by at least two employees under forty years old. Following this development and citing emotional distress exacerbated by these events, Malabanan requested protected leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on May 29, 2025; this request was eventually approved for June 2025.
After months without action on his initial report of harassment and discrimination, Malabanan submitted a second complaint on June 23, 2025—this time externally—alleging ongoing discrimination and retaliation under federal and state law. Subsequently, attorney Scott Lawson was retained by Point Digital Finance to investigate these allegations. On August 21, 2025 General Counsel Matthew Brady informed Malabanan via letter that there was “insufficient evidence” to conclude discriminatory or retaliatory intent.
Four days later on August 25th—after submitting an extension request for medical leave through September 5th—Malabanan’s employment was terminated effective immediately by Point Digital Finance.
The lawsuit brings multiple counts against Point Digital Finance including age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), disability discrimination under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; retaliation under ADEA; FMLA retaliation; discriminatory termination under New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); as well as related state law claims.
Malabanan asserts: “Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions…because of his age” and further alleges willful violations resulting in loss of employment opportunities and emotional distress.
The plaintiff is seeking a declaration from the court finding Defendant’s practices unlawful; compensatory damages; exemplary damages; punitive damages; interest; costs including attorney fees; appropriate equitable relief; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys David A. Nacht and Grace Cathryn Cretcher from NACHTLAW P.C., are representing Romeo Malabanan in this case (Case No. 1:26-cv-2296).
Source: 126cv02296_Romeo_Malabanan_v_Point_Digital_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
