Armenians were also one of many minorities who were not allowed to purchase property due to racially restrictive covenants. As recent as 1952, a home that had just been constructed in Fresno was restricted by a covenant  that read, “this property is sold on condition it is not resold or occupied by the following races: Armenian, Mexican, Japanese, Korean, Syrian, Negros, Filipinos, or Chinese.” 

As these legally institutionalized systems subjugated Armenians, so did corporate and political power. With an ancient history dating back to 2000-3000 BCE, the history of Armenians is extensive and complex. For centuries, Armenians were subjected to Ottoman rule. They were a Christian minority living in the Islamic caliphate of the Ottoman Empire where they were relegated to second-class citizenship and subjected to discriminatory laws and practices. Despite Armenians’ efforts to advocate for inclusion in governance and basic rights, Armenians were met with violent reprisals. 

One of the most atrocious turning points came on April 24th, 1915, when the Young Turk government orchestrated the systematic extermination of Armenians, beginning with the murder of intellectuals, professionals, and community leaders. This tragic day would mark the beginning of the Armenian Genocide, the first non-colonial genocide of the 20th century that claimed the lives of over one and a half million Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish jurist, would later coin the term “genocide” in 1944, inspired by what he had learned about the Armenians who perished in 1915.

Image from “The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute” Foundation.

As of 2021, the United States had not recognized the 1915 Armenian Genocide. While Armenian Americans continued to lobby for genocide recognition, oil companies and military contractors, such as Chevron, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Goodrich, Raytheon, and United Technologies lobbied Congress to block a resolution that would recognize the massacre of more than one million Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as “genocide.” Each of those big corporations had strong ties to Turkey, a key ally of the United States and a fervent denier of the genocide it committed. 

“While Armenian Americans continued to lobby for genocide recognition, oil companies and military contractors . . . lobbied Congress to block a resolution that would recognize the massacre of more than one million Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as ‘genocide.’”

Unfortunately, genocide denial was just another item on Turkey’s larger agenda—pan-Turkism in the Caucuses.  As such, the Turkic people of Azerbaijan have carried on Turkey’s mission of eliminating the Armenians who stand in the way of their empire building efforts. In 2020, Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey, launched an offensive on Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed territory that is 98% ethnically Armenian. The offensive would mark the beginning of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War that would last 44 days and wreak havoc on the Nagorno-Karabakh population. In fact, the goal was to intimidate the Armenian population there and remove them from their lands altogether. Notably, human rights violations such as unlawful strikes and torture were rampant. 

Meanwhile, the United States government continued to send billions of dollars of military aid to Azerbaijan. In addition to the United States, Israel supplied Azerbaijan with nearly 70% of its arsenal between the years of 2016 and 2020. In October of 2023, Azerbaijan, backed by the governments of Turkey, the United States, Israel, and several wealthy oil companies, starved, isolated, intimidated, and eventually forcibly displaced the entire Armenian population living in Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is now a ghost-town. Some of the only “life” that would be found there are the German corporations that have contracted with Azerbaijan. They have begun building upon the lands where 120,000 Armenians and their ancestors have lived for centuries. 

Such instances of discrimination and oppressive power structures bring into question the relationship between racial identity and systemic privilege. Namely, that legal whiteness and white privilege can and do coexist with discrimination, oppression, and subjugation. Such an interplay is not a crutch that should be used to deny the ways in which white individuals will be protected from certain ills, or benefit from certain power structures because they are white. It is also not an excuse to dismiss the traumatizing experiences of an oppressed group that is white.

The United States government continued to send billions of dollars of military aid to Azerbaijan. . . . Israel supplied Azerbaijan with nearly 70% of its arsenal between the years of 2016 and 2020. In October of 2023, Azerbaijan . . .  starved, isolated, intimidated, and eventually forcibly displaced the entire Armenian population living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The entire concept of “race” and the black and white racial binary that persists in American discourse was created for the very purpose of oppressing, exploiting, and harming Black individuals. Author Ta-Nehisi Coates stated that “Race is the child of racism, not the father.” The oversimplification of the black and white binary in America and the treatment of whiteness or blackness as a uniform identity reinforces the very narrative that was designed to subjugate Black individuals. It also ignores the experiences of marginalized multiracial, indigenous, and immigrant communities, whose identities and experiences are often erased. 

The Citibank scandal is just one recent example of the ongoing abuse of power systems against an already marginalized population. In trying to understand the nuances of this story and how it connects to the bigger picture, I had the opportunity to speak with two attorneys leading class action suits against Citibank. Smbatian v Citibank is one of the class action suits that was recently filed by attorney Tamar Arminak and her law firm. Arminak helped highlight the logistics of what was going on in the case, as well as the real, human impact that this incident has had on hundreds of families. When I reached out to Arminak, she helped explain how this whole story began… 

“Race is the child of racism, not the father.” 

In the early 2000s, back when Citibank was Cal Fed, management for the bank, likely somewhere in some skyrise in New York City, realized that there was a marked increase of immigrants moving into Glendale and its surrounding areas. This immigrant population, largely Armenians, were starting and acquiring their own businesses. Citibank quickly understood that there was a wonderful opportunity in Glendale to cultivate their banking business by selling a range of services to the Armenian community, like small business loans and lines of credit. And so, Citibank built a huge, beautiful branch in the city that boasted an Armenian population of nearly 200,000. But it didn’t stop there. Citibank began hiring Armenian employees, too. They understood that Armenians liked doing business with other Armenians, and that Armenians trusted other Armenians.

Photo of Brand Boulevard in Glendale, California. Taken by Talish Babaian.

Citibank recognized they could take advantage of the structure of Armenian families as well. Armenians would often open accounts to care for family members in addition to their own personal and business accounts. Citibank saw the ways in which Armenians would refer family members, too– cousins, aunts, uncles. Arminak explained this sort of mentality, “If I like you, you’re going to get my whole family.” And Citibank realized that. Citibank grew excited with the prospect that there was money to be made off the Armenians. Lines of credit, credit cards, small business loans—all kinds of financial products were being packaged and sold to this community who was ready and willing to spend their money. Over the years, Citibank made hundreds of millions of dollars off the Armenian community. 

At some point, Citibank became privy to a few fraud rings that happened to be led by Armenians. One of the most prevalent rings, a group of eight individuals, defrauded Wells Fargo and Bank of America of millions of dollars. Based on such stories, Citibank decided that Armenian consumers, as a whole, had become too risky. Citibank didn’t want to get caught up in the way that Wells Fargo and Bank of America had. And so, they decided to start “shedding away” their Armenian business, as Arminak explained. “They studied us [and] learned our ways. [They knew] there [was] money to be made off these Armenians. . . I find that most offensive of all,” she continued.

Citibank made hundreds of millions of dollars off the Armenian community. 

Citibank’s rationale for denying credit to thousands of Armenians was thus allegedly in an attempt to safeguard against a few groups of individuals engaged in fraudulent activity. This sort of “safeguarding” centering the protection of shareholders and profits serves as a legitimizing story aimed at excusing Citibank’s shameful acts. Corporations and courts alike will often create and legitimize these kinds of stories to justify their bad acts that are on their face discriminatory and unjust, any way you cut it. 

Arminak explained how the process might have worked. “I think someone in New York City in some office in New York thought, well, we can probably weed out a lot of these potential fraudulent customers, if we zone in on these zip codes [and filter by] ian and yan– simple as that. . . [But] what they did is sweep up 90% of the Armenian population.” 

Even those who lived in cities peripheral to Glendale were also swept up into Citibank’s blanket denials. Arminak explained that it would be possible that someone living in Beverly Hills would be denied a Costco credit card [a Citibank affiliate] because once upon a time she had opened her first bank account with Citibank when she was 18 years old and attending Glendale Community College. So, despite living in a new city and banking at a different Citibank branch decades later, the zip code associated with the first bank account that someone might have opened would stick. And so would Citibank’s discrimination. The discrimination would also follow people when they would visit Macy’s, Costco, Bloomingdale’s, and other Citibank affiliates that were offering lines of credit to their consumers.

The legal remedies available to those who have been discriminated against and harmed by Citibank will fall likely fall into two buckets: money damages and/or injunctive relief. Money damages can be compensatory or punitive — meaning, the plaintiffs can be awarded money and compensated based on the direct loss they experienced or, they can be awarded money as a way to punish Citibank for their harmful behavior. 

Typically, money damages are an easy “out” for large, wealthy corporations who have a lot of money. The companies are simply required to make a payment, and then are still able to continue on with their harmful practices. Injunctive relief, on the other hand, is a type of remedy whereby a court requires that a certain company, for example, stop a certain act or practice that has led to the specified harm in the case, or alternatively, to take steps to rectify that wrong. 

Notably, injunctive relief can be private or public. Private injunctive relief typically will aim to prevent an individual from experiencing the same type of harm again. On the other hand, public injunctive relief extends beyond the private interests of the parties involved in the lawsuit and aims to correct or prevent a harm to the public at large. Thus, public injunctive relief, coupled with monetary damages for individuals, would be an ideal remedy for those who have been harmed, and could be harmed, by Citibank’s discriminatory acts. 

While Citibank could be held liable for its harmful acts as a corporation, the individuals responsible for setting in place the discriminatory practices and procedures at Citibank cannot be held personally liable. When corporations are established, a separate legal entity is formed, and the corporation becomes somewhat like its own person. The corporation can thus take on debt, purchase goods, or enter into contracts. Since the business is recognized as an independent entity separate from the people that it is made up of, those individuals’ personal assets will typically be shielded if the business is sued, fails to repay debts, or goes bankrupt. This protective barrier between personal assets and business liabilities is referred to as “the corporate veil.” The corporate veil is critical in corporate law because it protects corporate executives and shareholders from personal liability in legal proceedings.

While Citibank could be held liable for its harmful acts as a corporation, the individuals responsible for setting in place the discriminatory practices and procedures at Citibank cannot be held personally liable.

Ara Jabagchourian, former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attorney, helped further demystify the legal landscape of the several lawsuits that will likely be flowing in. He is personally leading litigation efforts for two class action suits. Jabagchourian explained that the two causes of action that his class action suits (and that most of these cases) are concerned with entail a federal claim, and a California state claim that has been modeled after the FTC Section 5 Act. 

Jabagchourian further clarified that his team would be seeking proactive injunctive relief, in addition to some money damages, whereby Citibank would, moving forward, be required to explicitly explain and provide proper disclosure as to why a certain line of credit is denied or account is closed. This sort of remedy is forward-looking and would hopefully establish some sort of precedent for other banks to follow and would protect other marginalized communities in the future.

Example image from Ohio Construction Law Blog.

Jabagchourian’s primary concern related to the Citibank cases center the arbitration clauses that accompany Citibank’s contracts related to opening accounts, lines of credit, or other financial services. In contract law, arbitration clauses are clauses within a contract that require individuals to resolve any dispute that might arise through arbitration. 

Arbitration is a process by which legal disputes are resolved through a neutral third party, usually known as an arbitrator. Notably, the arbitration process does not involve a judge, a jury, or any of the other formalities associated with the type of court proceedings one might see on a television series. Arbitration clauses are particularly beneficial for large corporations primarily because they safeguard the corporations from having to defend themselves against class-action lawsuits—lawsuits that involve a whole group of people that have been wronged in a similar manner. 

Citibank’s arbitration clause . . . disallows for class formation—meaning, even if the bank discriminates against you and your entire community, you may not participate in a class action suit. 

Large corporations dislike class-action lawsuits because of the legal costs associated with going to court, the financial impact of a large group of plaintiffs who might be successful, reputational damage that might go public, and generally, the strain on their time and resources. For these reasons, corporations aim to dodge class action suits, costly court appearances, and scandalous news headlines that might hurt profits. Instead, arbitration allows large companies to pay off individuals when they have been wronged, but then to continue on with the problematic practices or procedures that led to the very harm the plaintiff was experiencing in the first instant. 

Jabagchourian highlights the manner in which Citibank and other large corporations will include these types of arbitration clauses among a “blitz of other [standard] form contracts.” These arbitration clauses provide consumers with 30 days to opt out of any one of the many agreements they have been sent out. Buried along with all of the other paperwork one might receive when opening a bank account, many individuals will likely miss these clauses, or perhaps find and read the clause but not fully understand the legal jargon or the implications of such a clause.

Like other standard arbitration clauses, Citibank’s arbitration clause outlines that if any issue is to arise with Citibank, the consumer must arbitrate the issue, as opposed to seeking legal remedies in a public court. Furthermore, the clause disallows for class formation—meaning, even if the bank discriminates against you and your entire community, you may not participate in a class action suit. 

Despite this challenge, Jabagchourian is hopeful, thanks to the Golden State of California. Home to In N Out Burger and overpriced green juices, California also happens to boast the law set forth in McGill v. Citibank. McGill case states one may not “contract away somebody’s right to bring a public injunction—[because] that is a statutory scheme to bring justice for the general public.” Thus regardless of the success of the lawsuits’ federal claim, the California state claim appears to be promising for setting forth some sort of public injunction that would prohibit Citibank from acting in a similar manner in the future. This also means that while Citibank might be responsible for changing its practices and providing monetary relief to those harmed, the individuals responsible for putting those discriminatory practices in place will not be held accountable for their actions. They will simply hide behind the corporate veil. 

When probed further on this issue, Jabagchourian shared that the Daibyan case his firm has filed is particularly interesting in that the plaintiff, Daibyan, applied for a credit card, and was quickly denied. Thus, there was no real arbitration clause that would apply to Daibyan because he had not yet opted into any sort of agreement.  In its meet and confer defense, Citibank has claimed that the arbitration clause stipulated in the terms and agreements upon opening his bank account also automatically applied to his credit card application.

Jabagchourian raised some interesting questions about this situation— “What happens when someone is denied but had a pre-existing relationship [with the bank]? They never were given the opportunity to deny arbitration [for that new product]. In fact, you’re taking a clause from a different product and trying to apply it to this one.” This arbitration clause Citibank and thousands of other banks employ is one very powerful tool that is used “to take power away from people,” Jabagchourian explained. 

Both Arminak and Jabagchourian had interesting views in terms of what “justice” might look like for these cases, and what “justice” might entail at a larger scale. Jabagchourian’s view on remedying corporate harm places more emphasis within the legal system itself. He says, “… in terms of retribution, the criminal justice system and the corporate world needs to hold executives liable, criminally, and I’m not talking about writing checks. You get [individual criminal responsibility in place] and you’re going to get some changes in the corporate world.”

This arbitration clause Citibank and thousands of other banks employ is one very powerful tool that is used “to take power away from people.” 

Jabagchourian finds the whole idea of the corporation being its own separate entity rather than an individual or a group of individuals as somewhat senseless. Since people are the ones ultimately making decisions for these corporations, the corporate veil goes so far as to protect both shareholders and those who are responsible for making decisions. Jabagchourian joked that AI hasn’t yet taken over this function of decision making just yet. So, how do our laws protect the wealthy? Well, that’s how, Jabagchourian says. It is the “shield that is provided to executives.”

Arminak’s viewpoint surrounding justice takes on an approach that looks outside the scope of the legal system. Arminak indicated that “Citibank hurts when people turn away from it, when people voluntarily go in and close their accounts, when people move their money and their business out of Citibank and go to their competing banks. That’s when the shareholders begin to get concerned and heads roll.” She believes that that’s the way justice would be best served, at a grand scale.

“. . . in terms of retribution, the criminal justice system and the corporate world needs to hold executives liable, criminally . . . ”

While Arminak’s and Jabagchourian’s views are distinct, they are also rather complimentary. Stripping away the shield provided to corporate executives via criminal accountability will require those responsible for their harmful acts to face the consequences of their decisions. Meanwhile, financial pressure brought about by consumer activism will push shareholders to demand internal reforms. Arminak’s and Jabagchourian’s beliefs suggest that a multifaceted approach to pursuing justice amid the legal safeguards that are put in place for corporations and corporate executives might be necessary to bring about real change and real justice.