A former analyst at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has filed suit against the regulator, alleging wrongful termination tied to his use of protected medical leave in 2025. The case raises potential compliance and employment practice considerations for firms navigating leave policies and performance management.
According to the complaint, Tamer Çetin joined FINRA in 2022 as a principal research analyst within the Office of the Chief Economist, working remotely from Oakland, California. He brought a Ph.D. in economics, postdoctoral academic experience, and technical expertise spanning econometrics, machine learning, and financial data analysis. His responsibilities reportedly included leading complex analytical initiatives, developing code to process and standardize large financial datasets, and applying advanced statistical modeling techniques to regulatory data.
Çetin’s performance evaluations from 2022 through 2024 were rated as “Partially Successful.” However, the filing emphasizes that he was not subject to formal disciplinary action, performance improvement plans, or documented warnings during that period. Despite the mixed ratings, he continued to be assigned to high-level analytical projects requiring specialized technical skills. The complaint argues that these assignments suggest his performance did not reach a threshold that would justify termination during his first three years.
In March 2025, Çetin experienced a serious medical condition that necessitated a leave of absence. The leave was approved through FINRA’s third-party administrator. His condition reportedly worsened in May, requiring an extension, with a projected return date of July 17, 2025. He resumed work on that date as scheduled.
For approximately three months following his return, Çetin claims he carried out his responsibilities without incident. The complaint states there were no formal or informal indications of performance deficiencies, nor any communication suggesting his role was at risk. No disciplinary measures or counseling sessions were documented during this post-leave period.
On October 15, 2025, FINRA terminated his employment effective immediately. The stated reason was “unacceptable conduct,” though the complaint asserts that no specific examples or supporting details were provided at the time of dismissal.
The lawsuit highlights the timing between Çetin’s return from leave and his termination—approximately 90 days—as a central issue. It alleges that this proximity raises questions about whether the decision was influenced by his medical condition and use of protected leave under applicable employment laws, rather than by documented performance or conduct concerns.
For registered investment advisors and wealth management firms, the case underscores the importance of maintaining clear, consistent documentation around employee performance, particularly when managing situations involving protected leave. It also illustrates the need for transparent communication and well-defined processes when addressing performance issues or disciplinary actions, especially in regulated environments where employment practices may face heightened scrutiny.
As the case proceeds, it may provide further insight into how courts evaluate the intersection of medical leave protections and employer discretion in termination decisions—an area of ongoing relevance for firms managing both regulatory obligations and workforce policies.
