WILLIAMSPORT, Penn. — A former chief lending officer at Horizon Federal Credit Union has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was demoted in practice, passed over for another executive position and ultimately fired after repeatedly raising concerns about regulatory violations involving lending, consumer data security and other practices at the credit union.
Brittany Baker filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Horizon Federal Credit Union, CEO Justin Howard and Chief Branding Officer Michael Patterson. The lawsuit alleges retaliation in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, along with a state-law misrepresentation claim, according to a brief of the lawsuit reviewed by the CU Daily.
Baker is seeking reinstatement as Horizon’s chief lending officer or front pay in lieu of reinstatement, as well as back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and other relief. She has demanded a jury trial.
The allegations have not been proven in court, and the complaint represents Baker’s account of the events.
The Background
Horizon, headquartered in Williamsport, was established in 1955 and operates in 11 counties in central Pennsylvania, according to the lawsuit. Howard was Baker’s direct supervisor during the period at issue, while Patterson served as chief branding officer and was also the credit union’s chief manager of human resources functions and operations, according to the complaint. Baker alleges Howard and Patterson collaborated on employment decisions involving her and that Howard gave final approval to decisions affecting her employment.
The lawsuit follows a lengthy administrative proceeding that began after Baker filed a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on June 11, 2025.
OSHA ultimately found no reasonable cause to conclude that Horizon and the individual defendants violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or Consumer Financial Protection Act and dismissed Baker’s complaint Jan. 30, 2026. Baker filed objections Feb. 5 and requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. The Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges accepted the case and assigned it to Administrative Law Judge Drew A. Swank.
Case Taken to Federal Court
After Swank ruled in June that the proceeding would be conducted virtually rather than in person, Baker elected to take the case to federal district court for a new review. Her complaint invokes provisions of the two federal laws allowing whistleblowers to bring their cases to federal court when the Labor Department has not issued a final order within specified periods.
According to court documents, Baker joined Horizon in February 2022 as director of retail delivery and alleges she soon began identifying and correcting compliance issues and reporting them to Howard and then-Chief Experience Officer Denise Lariviere.
Her initial performance reviews were strong, according to the filing, which states that a September 2022 evaluation gave Baker an average score of 4, or “Exceeds Expectations,” on a five-point scale. Lariviere wrote that employees across Horizon had commented on how much they appreciated and respected Baker for her support and willingness to help.
Promoted to Lending Director
Baker became director of lending effective Sept. 1, 2022, and continued reporting to Lariviere.
The complaint alleges Baker continued identifying regulatory compliance problems and increasingly told Howard and Lariviere that many resulted from actions or inactions by Lariviere.
Her performance score declined from 4.0 to 3.8 in January 2023 and then to 3.7 in June 2023. Baker alleges her compliance reporting contributed to the declines.
The complaint alleges that throughout 2023 Baker discovered lapsed loan applications that violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations and reported the problems to Howard and Lariviere.
No Investigation Alleged
Baker alleges Howard did not investigate Lariviere’s purported compliance violations. The lawsuit says Baker subsequently made fewer compliance reports during the second half of 2023, while her performance rating climbed to 4.35 in September 2023 and 4.3 in February 2024.
Horizon removed lending responsibilities from Lariviere’s position in November 2023 and created a chief lending officer position, according to the complaint. Baker was promoted to CLO effective Jan. 1, 2024, putting her on the same executive level as Lariviere and making Howard her direct supervisor.
The complaint alleges Baker then resumed reporting compliance problems.
Concerns over Recorded Calls
One major issue involved Horizon’s use of technology from RingCentral to record telephone calls.
Horizon had formed a Membership Engagement Team in 2023 to respond to member inquiries and needs and contracted with RingCentral for a call-recording program, according to the lawsuit.
The recordings could capture personally identifying information and confidential financial information belonging to members, Baker alleges.
Howard approved use of the recording program in August 2023, according to the complaint. Baker alleges she raised concerns Aug. 23, 2023, that Horizon did not have policies and procedures necessary to secure members’ personal and financial information and prevent its disclosure.
The lawsuit also alleges Horizon was required to inform callers that calls were being recorded.
The issue surfaced again during an April 24, 2024, leadership meeting, when Horizon’s leadership discussed the need for compliant policies and procedures for the call-recording program.
Repeated Assurances
Baker alleges Howard and Lariviere repeatedly assured her during 2024 that Horizon had implemented appropriate policies and procedures. But in late 2024 or early 2025, according to the lawsuit, Baker discovered that compliant procedures had not been put in place and reported that to Howard.
The complaint ties the issue to Horizon’s ability to certify compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, or PCI DSS, an industry standard governing payment-card data security.
Baker alleges Horizon could not truthfully certify PCI DSS compliance without appropriate policies and procedures and contends that inability was also an indicator of potential noncompliance with federal laws and regulations.
Howard conducted three evaluations of Baker during 2024, giving her an average score of 3.23 on the five-point scale, according to the lawsuit. Baker alleges her compliance reporting contributed to the lower scores.
Dispute Intensifies
The conflict escalated in early 2025, according to the complaint, which states that Baker emailed Howard on Jan. 28 to report additional compliance concerns involving Lariviere. Howard put the concerns on the agenda for a Feb. 4 senior management meeting.
Between Feb. 4 and March 3, Baker alleges she identified and reported six additional regulatory violations caused by Lariviere.
Baker claims Horizon failed to protect her under its whistleblower policy as the relationship deteriorated.
On March 3, Baker sent Howard an email saying she would no longer be complicit in Horizon’s and Howard’s alleged failure to correct or address Lariviere’s repeated regulatory violations when Baker’s “neck was on the line” with regulators, according to the complaint.
Falsifications Alleged
As chief lending officer, Baker alleges she faced responsibility for lending, privacy and security violations she attributed to Lariviere, including alleged income falsification, loan fraud, negative amortization, governance failures and systematic failures to disclose adverse credit decisions.
The following day, March 4, Howard told Baker she would be better suited working elsewhere and offered to write her a recommendation letter, the lawsuit alleges.
During a March 7 meeting, Howard told Baker he planned to recruit an outside candidate for a new position that would recombine the chief lending and chief experience officer jobs and that Baker would not be considered for it, according to the complaint.
‘Take the Credit Union Down’
Baker alleges Howard said that if he did not remove both Baker and Lariviere from their positions, it would “take the credit union down and he needs to consider all the other employees,” according to the complaint.
Howard then gave Baker three choices, according to the lawsuit: remain through Horizon’s core conversion and receive severance afterward; accept a demotion; or voluntarily leave the credit union.
Baker rejected the choices.
Report Made to FTC
The lawsuit alleges Baker continued discovering and reporting problems after the March 7 meeting, including approximately five additional lending-practice violations between March 12 and March 20.
Lariviere went on leave around March 17 and never returned to Horizon, according to the complaint, which alleges that at 8:37 a.m. March 20, Baker submitted an external report to the Federal Trade Commission alleging credit union members’ personally identifying and confidential financial information was being transmitted through unsecured email.
At 9:01 a.m. that same day, Howard again presented Baker with his earlier ultimatum, according to the lawsuit.
She again declined the choices, the lawsuit states.
Counteroffer Made
Baker made a counteroffer around March 27 to assume the newly recombined chief experience officer role, but Howard rejected it, according to the lawsuit.
In an April 3 email to Howard, Baker said the ultimatum “appears to be retaliation due to the excessive and pervasive issues related to compliance and consistency as I outlined over the past several years,” according to the complaint.
Baker specifically linked her concerns to alleged violations involving the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B; the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act and Regulation G; the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and Regulation C; and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the FTC’s Safeguards Rule.
Call-recording issue remained unresolved, suit says
Ongoing Concerns
The lawsuit alleges Baker continued raising concerns about the call-recording program.
On April 22, she reminded Horizon Chief Financial and Information Officer Michael Burns that the credit union needed policies and procedures governing recorded calls to comply with federal law.
Burns told Baker he had presented the required policies and procedures to Howard for approval, according to the complaint, but Baker alleges Howard never adopted them.
The lawsuit alleges Horizon therefore could not truthfully certify compliance with federal law through at least April 22.
Continued Recording Alleged
Baker further alleges Horizon continued recording member calls without compliant policies or procedures through her termination.
The complaint says Burns disabled recording at Horizon’s Lock Haven branch in late April or early May and that Burns and Baker required dual consent for outgoing calls from the Member Engagement Call Center. But Baker alleges Horizon still lacked necessary procedures and dual-consent disclosures for internal employee calls.
Forced Choice Alleged
Horizon again pressed Baker on April 23 to choose between demotion and separation, the lawsuit alleges, adding that the credit union created and advertised a chief relationship officer position around May 8.
Baker alleges she was qualified, applied for the job and was never considered. She contends her whistleblowing was a factor in the decision.
Baker then expanded her reports to outside regulators and government agencies.
Timeline Provided
According to the lawsuit:
- On May 14, she reported alleged Horizon compliance violations to the Federal Communications Commission and made a second report to the FTC.
- On May 15, she reported alleged violations to the National Credit Union Administration and Pennsylvania attorney general.
- On May 16, she reported alleged violations to the NCUA Office of Inspector General and NCUA Cyber Security and contacted James Fedele, chairman of Horizon’s board of directors.
Fedele responded May 18 that Howard had been keeping the board informed.
“Generally, the board’s position is not to get involved in employee issues as we do not have first-hand knowledge of the situations,” Fedele wrote, according to the complaint.
‘Failure to Meet Expectations’
Three days later, on May 21, Howard gave Baker a performance rating of 2.6 out of 5 for the period from Jan. 1 through April 30, according to the complaint.
A score below 3 indicated failure to meet expectations, the lawsuit says. Baker alleges her performance score had remained above 3 before the intensification of her compliance reporting in March and contends the whistleblowing contributed to the decline.
NCUA Sought Statement
The lawsuit says the NCUA requested a statement from Baker around May 22 and advised her to submit a formal complaint to Horizon’s Supervisory Committee.
Baker provided sworn statements to the NCUA that day and filed a formal complaint with Horizon’s Supervisory Committee around May 27.
The committee never responded to her, according to the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Baker was completing Horizon’s core conversion project, which the lawsuit says had been one reason Horizon wanted her to remain employed.
Baker completed most of the conversion around June 2, according to the complaint. Only “clean-ups” remained, which were expected to be finished by July and did not require Baker’s expertise.
Termination Letter
Horizon terminated Baker on June 11, 2025.
In its termination letter, according to the complaint, Horizon said Baker had been informed months earlier about the planned combination of the chief experience and chief lending positions and had been offered several choices about her future.
“After multiple opportunities were provided to you, you did not select any of the options provided,” the letter said, according to the lawsuit. “It is now time that the organization must move forward.”
Baker alleges Horizon could have retained her but chose not to and that her repeated reporting of compliance violations and risks contributed to the decision to terminate her.
Consumer Financial Protection Act Claim
The first count of the lawsuit alleges Horizon, Howard and Patterson retaliated against Baker in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
The complaint argues Horizon is a covered person or service provider subject to the law’s whistleblower protections and contends Howard and Patterson may also be held individually liable.
Baker alleges her reports to Horizon executives, its Supervisory Committee, the FTC and NCUA constituted protected whistleblower activity.
She contends Horizon’s employment actions — including the choices of demotion or purported voluntary separation — were unfavorable personnel actions and that her whistleblowing contributed to the lowering of her performance scores, the decision not to consider her for the chief relationship officer position and her eventual termination.
Sarbanes-Oxley Claim
Baker’s second claim alleges retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The legal theory is less direct because Horizon itself is not alleged to be a publicly traded company.
Instead, Baker alleges Horizon operates as a contractor for publicly traded companies, naming Experian, TransUnion, Equifax and ChexSystems. The complaint says ChexSystems is owned by a subsidiary of Fidelity National Information Services.
Baker argues that Horizon’s relationships with publicly traded companies bring it within Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protections for employees of contractors of public companies. She also contends Howard and Patterson can be held individually liable.
Accuracy Challenged
Baker alleges she raised concerns that challenged the accuracy of Horizon’s financial condition and reporting obligations to members and regulators, including alleged income falsification, loan fraud, negative amortization, governance failures and systematic failure to disclose adverse credit decisions.
She claims she reasonably believed the alleged violations could financially affect the publicly traded companies for which Horizon was a contractor and, by extension, their shareholders.
The complaint alleges her reports qualified as protected activity under Sarbanes-Oxley and that they contributed to adverse employment actions, including reduced performance ratings, the failure to consider her for the chief relationship officer job and her termination.
Whistleblower Policy at Center of Third Claim
Baker’s third cause of action alleges misrepresentation and centers on Horizon’s own whistleblower policy.
According to the complaint, the version of the policy in effect when Baker was terminated had been drafted, reviewed and approved by Howard and Patterson.
The policy said its purpose was to encourage employees to report suspected wrongdoing without fear of “victimization, retaliation, subsequent discrimination, or disadvantage” and to allow employees, officers and directors to raise serious concerns rather than overlook potential problems.
It also contained representations concerning confidentiality and protection from retaliation, according to the lawsuit.
Reliance on Representations
Baker alleges she relied on those representations when deciding to report suspected regulatory violations and reasonably believed Horizon would protect her against retaliation.
The complaint alleges Howard also regularly assured Baker that he would address Lariviere’s alleged compliance violations.
Instead, Baker alleges Horizon and its executives retaliated against her or allowed retaliation to occur.
The complaint goes further, alleging the defendants knew they were failing to honor the whistleblower policy and contending that the policy’s representations were intended to induce employees to report misconduct and thereby expose themselves to retaliation.
Baker alleges her reliance on the policy ultimately led to her termination.
OSHA Previously Rejected Claims
The federal lawsuit follows an administrative process in which Baker did not initially prevail.
She filed her OSHA whistleblower complaint June 11, 2025, alleging retaliation under the Consumer Financial Protection Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act. She amended the complaint July 31.
Horizon provided OSHA with a position statement Aug. 21, Baker filed a rebuttal Sept. 5, and Horizon submitted a surrebuttal Oct. 1, according to the federal complaint.
On Jan. 30, 2026 — 233 days after Baker filed the OSHA complaint — the agency found no reasonable cause to conclude that Horizon and the other defendants violated either federal whistleblower law and dismissed the case.
Baker objected and sought review by an administrative law judge before electing to pursue the claims in federal court.
The new lawsuit seeks de novo review, meaning the federal court is being asked to consider Baker’s claims anew rather than simply review OSHA’s determination.
Relief Sought
Baker is asking the court to order her reinstatement as Horizon’s chief lending officer or award front pay with interest in lieu of reinstatement.
She is also seeking back pay with interest; compensatory damages for alleged emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation and reputational harm; litigation costs, expert witness fees and attorney fees; punitive damages; and any other relief the court determines is appropriate.
The complaint names Horizon, Howard and Patterson as defendants on all three counts. Baker certified that the allegations in the filing were true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.
