NYC Judge Rules Against JPMorgan Banker, Cites "Cannons" Allegation as Implausible

NEW YORK, NY – In a ruling that legal scholars are calling groundbreaking, a New York City federal judge has dismissed a former JPMorgan banker’s sexual harassment lawsuit, concluding that the plaintiff's vivid descriptions of his alleged tormentor's references to her own anatomy as "cannons" being "weaponized" as "artillery" were deemed unbelievable to any reasonable person.

The case, brought by ex-investment banker Chirayu Rana against his former colleague, Lorna Hajdini, alleged a pattern of severe and pervasive harassment.

Rana's complaint meticulously detailed Hajdini's references to her physical attributes, specifically referring to her breasts interchangeably as "cannons", "dual-barreled artillery pieces" and a "laser-guided munitions system," all deployed at various times, he claimed, to "force intimate acts" upon him.

However, Judge Harriet Oppenheimer, in her written decision, found the plaintiff’s description of the defendant's terminology to be more of a fantastic, delusional scenario, one that would never be used by an actual woman as a compelling narrative of coercion.

"While the court acknowledges the plaintiff's claims of distress, the court also finds the repeated characterization of the defendant referring to her own anatomical features as some sort of 'artillery' is unbelievable." Judge Oppenheimer wrote in her 32-page ruling.

"Also, to expect this court to believe it would be possible to 'force' intimate acts while simultaneously 'operating' heavy ordnance, particularly of a biological nature, presents a significant biomechanical and tactical paradox.

"The human body, even one as allegedly 'weaponized' as described, does not possess the inherent infrastructure for both sustained artillery deployment and the physical manipulations implied by 'forced intimate acts' without one activity demonstrably impeding the other."

She added, "Who could even think of that?"

Prior to delivering her ruling, Judge Oppenheimer asked the attorneys to approach the bench and was interpreted as saying, "Look, no woman in history has ever referred to her own breasts as "cannons... OK?

"A dead heat in a Zeppelin race? Maybe... Cannons? No."

Rana's attorney, Ms. Brenda Sterling, expressed profound disappointment with the ruling. "We provided ample evidence of Ms. Hajdini's aggressive, unwelcome, warlike advances.

"And. Um... My client meant to use the word "cannons" as a metaphor to convey the overwhelming nature of the harassment directed against him," Sterling stated, adjusting her glasses.

"He wasn't suggesting she said she had, like, actual cannons... This is a colossal misunderstanding of figurative language. It’s like saying a ‘raining cats and dogs’ forecast means you need to carry a pet carrier instead of an umbrella."

Judge Oppenheimer, however, remained steadfast in her interpretation.

Rana is reportedly considering an appeal. However, sources close to his legal team suggest they are struggling to re-draft a complaint without using any descriptive adjectives for Ms. Hajdini's self-described weaponry.

Meanwhile, Ms. Hajdini's legal team issued a brief statement commending the court for its "rigorous adherence to common sense" and suggested Rana consider rethinking his career on Wall Street and trade it in for opportunities as a writer of military fiction.