Former JPMorgan employee Chiragyu Rana has withdrawn the lawsuit he filed against his supervisor in a New York State court, in which he alleged that she coerced him into humiliating sexual acts. He plans instead to pursue a more comprehensive case in federal court.

Rana’s new legal team, consisting of five attorneys, argues in recent court filings that the original lawsuit against Lorna Haidini failed to include key violations of federal law, including racial discrimination, retaliation, and interference with rights related to family and medical leave.

Ex-JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana wants to drop NY 'sex slave' lawsuit, move case to federal court with 'substantial new evidence' https://t.co/gMJ2qoUBRs pic.twitter.com/VfPXd1UcwY

— New York Post (@nypost) June 8, 2026

According to court documents filed Monday in the Manhattan Supreme Court, the case should now be litigated in federal rather than state court.

“The public has been fed a completely distorted version of this case, constructed through sensational headlines that bear no relation to what actually happened to Mr. Rana,” said his new attorney, John L. Norinsberg.

“Significant New Evidence”

Rana’s new lawyers claim they have identified “significant new evidence,” although they have not disclosed any details.

At the same time, his new legal team—which includes two founding partners and the head of litigation at the employment-law firm Joseph & Norinsberg—is invoking protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in response to Haidini’s defamation counterclaim.

According to Rana’s attorneys, some of his statements “constitute personal opinions and cannot be proven true or false.” Court filings state that “some or all of the challenged statements cannot form the basis of a lawsuit under the First Amendment and New York law because they constitute expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.”

Attorney Benita L. Joseph, a member of Rana’s new legal team, described Haidini’s counterclaim as “an obvious act of retaliation and a desperate attempt to punish Mr. Rana for having the courage to report the racism and mistreatment he alleges he endured.”

Haidini’s counterclaim in state court is not affected by Rana’s decision to withdraw his own lawsuit.

The filings further state that “some or all of the challenged statements are true or substantially true,” without specifying which statements or clarifying the legal distinction between the two formulations. The documents also assert that “at all times, the plaintiff acted in good faith and without improper motive.”

JPMorgan has also categorically denied Rana’s allegations. Neither the bank nor representatives for Haidini immediately responded to requests for comment.

The new federal lawsuit is expected to be filed under Rana’s real name rather than anonymously. Last month, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled that he could not continue the state case under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

“The resolution of the dispute through a single proceeding in federal court will prevent fragmented or parallel litigation and conserve resources for both the parties and the court,” the filings state. They add that Rana plans to file the new lawsuit by the end of the month.

Before changing law firms twice during the course of the case, Rana reportedly sought legal advice from a free online artificial-intelligence chatbot.

What Rana Alleged in His Original Lawsuit

In his original lawsuit, which attracted considerable attention, Rana claimed he was the victim of a prolonged campaign of sexual coercion and racial degradation, while management ignored his complaints. He also alleged that Haidini threatened to reduce his bonus if he refused to become her “sexual slave.”

His first attorney sought to withdraw from the case one month after filing the lawsuit and only hours before the first court appearance, citing a mutual agreement with his client.

However, the court required the attorney to attend the hearing, during which the request to proceed anonymously as “John Doe” was denied.

“The case law is absolutely clear,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Dakota D. Ramseur said at the time. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

The judge concluded that hearing by encouraging both parties to explore “what might lead, if possible, to an out-of-court resolution of the dispute.”

However, by seeking to move the case into federal court, Rana and his five attorneys now appear to be pursuing a different legal strategy.