Wells Fargo Fake Interviews: A History of Corporate Betrayal
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
A major bank promised to open its doors to more Black talent. Instead, it allegedly set up a system of smoke and mirrors. In late 2025, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $85 million to settle a lawsuit regarding its hiring practices. The suit claimed the bank staged fake interviews for diversity candidates for jobs that were already promised to someone else (fox7austin.com). This practice paints a cynical picture of corporate America. Companies collect praise for diversity initiatives while shutting real doors in the faces of qualified applicants. For Black job seekers, this practice wastes time and hope. It forces them to prepare for opportunities that do not actually exist.
The settlement ends a legal battle that exposed the dark side of corporate diversity mandates. However, the history behind these headlines reveals a deeper issue. It shows how policies meant to help underrepresented groups can be weaponized against them. From the NFL’s “Rooney Rule” to modern corporate quotas, the road to fair hiring remains blocked by systemic deception. The story of Wells Fargo is not an isolated incident. It serves as a case study on how *economic justice against all odds* remains elusive for Black workers.
The Roots of the Mandate
To understand how this happened, one must look back to 2003. The National Football League introduced the “Rooney Rule” that year. The rule required teams to interview at least one minority candidate for head coaching vacancies. The goal appeared noble. The league wanted to break the “old boys’ network” that kept Black coaches on the sidelines. Over time, corporate America adopted similar policies. They believed that simply getting diverse candidates in the room would lead to more diverse hiring. By 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, major corporations rushed to implement their own versions of this rule (yalelawandpolicy.org).
Wells Fargo formalized its “diverse slate” policy in mid-2020. The bank required that at least 50 percent of candidates interviewed for U.S. roles paying more than $100,000 must come from underrepresented groups (fox7austin.com). This mandate aimed to increase diversity in high-paying leadership roles. However, it also created intense pressure on hiring managers. They had to meet quotas to show they were complying with the new directives. Without a genuine commitment to hiring, the policy became a checklist. Managers needed to find diverse bodies to interview, regardless of whether the job remained open.
The timing of this policy is significant. It came shortly after Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf faced backlash for a controversial comment. He claimed the bank struggled to reach diversity goals because of a “very limited pool of Black talent” (charlotteobserver.com). This statement invoked a tired stereotype that blames Black professionals for their own underrepresentation. It suggests the talent does not exist, rather than admitting the company refuses to find it. Scharf later apologized, but the pressure to prove him wrong likely fueled the fake interview crisis. Managers scrambled to show activity, even if that activity was fraudulent.
The Whistleblower Steps Forward
The scheme might have continued indefinitely if not for Joe Bruno. Bruno served as a market leader in the wealth management division at Wells Fargo in Jacksonville, Florida. He noticed a disturbing trend. Managers frequently interviewed diverse candidates for positions that they had already promised to others. Bruno described these as “fake interviews” designed solely to satisfy the 50 percent diversity requirement (fox7austin.com). The bank treated Black applicants as props in a performance of inclusivity.
Bruno did not stay silent. He complained to his superiors about the practice. He told them the interviews were “inappropriate, morally wrong, ethically wrong” (fox7austin.com). Instead of fixing the problem, the bank retaliated. Wells Fargo fired Bruno in August 2021. The bank claimed it dismissed him for being “combative” with his colleagues. This is a common tactic used to discredit whistleblowers. It shifts the focus from the company’s bad behavior to the employee’s personality.
Bruno filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. His claims sparked a federal investigation and a massive shareholder lawsuit. He exposed how the “diverse slate” guidelines worked in reality. Managers would select a candidate, usually a white man, and then frantically search for a “diverse” person to interview to make the hire official. This process wasted the time of the applicant. It also gave them false hope. This betrayal mirrors the historical disappointment where freedom defines Black political power only to be undermined by systemic barriers.
The Illusion of Progress
The scandal at Wells Fargo is part of a larger phenomenon. In 2024, a survey by ResumeBuilder revealed that 40 percent of companies admitted to posting fake job listings that year. Of those companies, 85 percent said they interviewed candidates anyway (resumebuilder.com). They did this to give the impression that the company was growing or to keep a “warm pipeline” of talent for the future. For Black workers, who already face significant discrimination in hiring, this adds another layer of difficulty.
Wells Fargo defended itself by pointing to its hiring statistics. The bank claimed that between 2020 and 2021, its external hiring of people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups increased by 27 percent (fox7austin.com). However, statistics can mislead. Companies often lump various groups together under the banner of “diversity.” This allows them to claim progress while specific groups, particularly Black Americans, see little gain. A 27 percent increase in “diverse” hires does not prove the interviews were fair. It only proves the bank successfully filled quotas.
The wealth management division, where Bruno worked, is notoriously exclusive. It relies heavily on existing networks and “books of business” that historically exclude Black professionals. This exclusion is part of a long history of African American labor struggles. By conducting sham interviews, managers could protect their insular culture while appearing to comply with modern diversity standards. They could hire the person they wanted all along—often someone from their own social circle—while telling corporate headquarters they tried to find a diverse candidate.
Who Really Pays the Price?
In late 2025, Wells Fargo agreed to an $85 million settlement (advisorhub.com). While this sounds like a victory, it is important to understand who received the money. The settlement resolved a class-action lawsuit filed by *shareholders*, not job applicants. These investors argued that the bank lied to them about its diversity hiring practices. They claimed the “sham interviews” artificially inflated the company’s stock price by making it look more socially responsible than it actually was (advisorhub.com). When the truth came out, the stock price dropped, and the investors lost money.
The job seekers who were tricked into fake interviews received nothing from this specific settlement. The legal system prioritizes financial loss to investors over the time and dignity lost by workers. Proving damages in an employment discrimination case is much harder than proving securities fraud. An applicant must prove they would have gotten the job if the process had been fair. In a “fake job” scenario, the job was never truly open, making that argument legally difficult. This reality underscores how the legal system often fails to address the root of inequality.
Furthermore, while the shareholders got paid, the government closed its criminal investigations. Wells Fargo confirmed that the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission had ended their inquiries without taking action (fox7austin.com). This occurred under the current political landscape, where corporate regulation has shifted. The closure of these investigations allows the bank to maintain that it did not violate federal laws, even if its actions were deceptive. This leaves the whistleblowers and the applicants without federal validation of the harm they suffered.
The Cynicism of “Box Checking”
The term “box-checking” appears frequently in the court documents. It describes a mindset where compliance matters more than intent. The shareholder lawsuit highlighted a “sudden retirement” of a senior executive as evidence of this culture. The court found that this executive’s abrupt departure, combined with internal emails, suggested that leadership knew the diversity policy was a sham (securitieslaw.com). The bank wanted the credit for being diverse without doing the hard work of actually diversifying its leadership.
This cynicism damages the entire concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). When companies fake their efforts, they provide ammunition to critics who claim diversity programs are unnecessary or fraudulent. It also creates skepticism among Black professionals. When a recruiter reaches out, a candidate must now wonder: Is this a real opportunity, or am I just a number on a compliance form? This psychological burden is heavy. It discourages talent from engaging with major corporations, perpetuating the very “limited pool” myth that executives complain about.
The situation at Wells Fargo highlights the complex relationship between policy and practice. A rule like the “diverse slate” requirement is only as good as the people enforcing it. Without accountability, these rules become tools for deception. The bank’s willingness to settle for $85 million suggests they wanted to avoid a public trial that would reveal even more damaging details. It is a cost of doing business, rather than an admission of moral failure.
Moving Forward
The case of Wells Fargo serves as a warning. It shows that diversity cannot be measured by interview statistics alone. True inclusion requires a shift in culture, not just a change in policy. The history of exploitation in America has simply evolved from physical labor to bureaucratic manipulation. Companies must be held accountable for the outcomes of their hiring, not just the process.
For Joe Bruno, the fight continues. While the shareholders have settled, his personal battle exposes the risks whistleblowers face. His story is a reminder that standing up for what is right often comes at a high personal cost. However, without his actions, the “fake interview” scheme might still be operating in the shadows today. As we navigate a labor market filled with “ghost jobs” and performative allies, vigilance remains the most valuable tool for Black workers seeking fair treatment.
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
