Conn. (WFSB) – Now to a continuing I-Team investigation into the Department of Banking
First there were the complaints against the commissioner, who employees have accused of bullying, intimidation and even sleeping on the job.
Two weeks ago, we told the I-Team has spoken to about 15 employees, who have complaints against Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez.
Now the I-Team is learning the state suspended a top Department of Banking manager, Alvaro Santamaria, earlier this year, after state investigators say he sexually harassed one employee, and told others he had the power to get them fired.
The I-Team found records show some employees feel the Banking Commissioner isn’t doing enough to protect the victims.
The two employees had gone to their supervisors with concerns in October 2025, and the state started an internal investigation. According to records, Department of Administrative Services, who handles HR for banking, felt the allegations were serious enough to be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity and Office of Labor Relations offices.
Santamaria was suspended in July 2025 after investigators found the “inappropriate behavior” had been happening since the women started, in 2024. They also found Santamaria intimidated multiple other employees.
It was April 2025 when state investigators say Alvaro Santamaria sent an employee this link to an Instagram video in Spanish. According to the investigation, when she clicked on it, she saw an elephant’s genitals dragging across a man’s face.
The state employee told investigators Santamaria said, he planned to do the same thing the video showed to a different employee, to show that employee “big d**** energy.” She said he had complained about this to employee to her and others before.
The woman told investigators, she felt shocked and uncomfortable. She said the two had been on the phone during work hours when Santamaria sent it.
According to records released to the I-Team through a Freedom of Information request, state investigators say Santamaria told them, he “did not recall” sending the link, but when confronted with the text, told them if he did, “he saw it as him being funny and protective in maybe an inappropriate way.”
That’s not all.
State records show that same victim told investigators, Santamaria often called her after work hours, referring to her as his ‘work crush’ saying “he just wanted to impress her.”
The report notes the employee says when she met Santamaria in person for the first time, in the office, he told her she looked beautiful with her hair and make-up done.
Records show Santamaria also texted her during in-person training, commenting when she yawned, laughed or left for the bathroom.
According to the report, she says “Mr. Santamaria told her multiple times “He felt like a creep,” because he was always reaching out to her.”
The employee told investigators she felt she had to be nice because he often spoke of his close relationship with Commissioner Jorge Perez, telling her “he could protect her position.”
She said if she didn’t respond to his texts or calls, he’d respond, “rejected,” or “denied again.”
Commissioner Perez was the one who appointed and promoted Santamaria to a newly created role, Program Manager of Innovation and Strategy, in 2025.
Santamaria did tell state investigators he “may have told the employee she looked beautiful” but “in a polite way.”
He said he “did not recall” telling her she was his work crush, and if he did have any conversations “they were in a respectful manner and there may have been a level of joking, but never in a sense to make her feel uncomfortable.”
But a second employee told investigators Santamaria often made her uncomfortable as well, making “her feel her job could ultimately be in his hands.”
She said he told her he “had the Commissioner’s ear,” a saying other employees who were interviewed told investigators he said to them as well.
That second employee says Santamaria also tried to invite her to lunch, saying it was to discuss her work. She said he invited her in front of others. When she declined, saying if he wanted to “say something, he could say it in front of everyone, she told investigators that “Santamaria got flustered,” saying he would just email her.
State records show Santamaria denied this.
Also in her complaint, that same employee says Santamaria once told her on a Teams call, “I know you all think I’m like the creepy uncle and if you tell anyone about this, I will deny it.” Santamaria said he did not recall saying that.
At least five employees who were interviewed as part of the state investigation say Santamaria often criticized management, calling members of the leadership team names like f****** idiots, something Santamaria “does not recall.”
They told state investigators Santamaria often spoke about the power he had over their jobs because of his close relationship with the Commissioner.
When asked, records show Santamaria denied this and told investigators he “had never had a conversation with Commissioner Perez regarding the performance of an employee.”
He added, “No DOB employee ever told him he was making them uncomfortable, and no DOB employee ever indicated by their body language or response to him that he was making them uncomfortable.”
Two different state departments investigated the complaints.
An Equal Employment Opportunity, or EEO, investigator found Santamaria violated the Department’s Anti-Harassment policy in the first victim’s case, saying Santamaria sexually harassed her for a period of time. The EEO investigator recommended Santamaria retake sexual harassment prevention training as a result.
But she also recommended the first victim re-take the same training, saying she unknowingly participated in sexual harassment, because she showed other employees the video her boss texted her. The investigator “finds it important to note while she did not send the link to others, she did tell team members about the video and even showed one employee. It appeared, from the victim’s interview, she did this because she was upset over it.
An Office of Labor Relations, or OLR investigator went further, suspending Santamaria for 10 days without pay starting in early July, saying he violated the Department’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy.
The investigator says Santamaria created “an intimidating/hostile work environment for junior staff,” adding she found evidence of intimidation, implied threats, coercion and psychological harassment in his behavior toward multiple employees.
Records show before his suspension, Santamaria wrote to OLR noting this was his first disciplinary matter, and said there had been no further issues since he was notified of the investigation.
The I-Team reached out to Santamaria through email, asking about the investigation and suspension. He didn’t respond. His attorney did, saying “we will not have any comment.”
Santamaria still works there in his position. He returned to work July 20th, after the ten day suspension.
Records the I-Team received through a FOIA request, show the victims’ supervisors raised concerns about Santamaria’s contact with the victims before his suspension.
One supervisor wrote to the department’s general counsel about a June 1st meeting with the commissioner and HR where it was discussed whether Santamaria would be allowed in large group meetings with the victims, and other actions following the investigation.
In her email, the supervisor wrote that during the meeting “The commissioner stated “Al needs to use better judgement in sending cartoons” and “It is not like he physically touched them,” adding an HR rep said “We are not putting anyone in physical danger and no one was physically harmed.”
Both supervisors say they became concerned after they said the Commissioner and HR said no additional safeguards would be provided beyond no direct contact. The victims had been concerned about having to be in the same room for training.
Records show General Counsel responded, denying the Commissioner or HR said the above, calling their words a ‘mischaracterization of the discussion.”
General Counsel responded, saying told the supervisors they had been told “that Al is not to contact or interact with any employee who filed a complaint against him or who was involved in the investigation.”
We emailed the Commissioner, asking about Santamaria, asking about safeguards the Department has put in place and whether he said the above statements the supervisor noted in her email.
Commissioner Perez said in a statement, “I take reports of harassment extremely seriously. When this concern was raised, our agency partnered with HR to conduct a thorough investigation in line with our established policies. Based on the findings, appropriate disciplinary action was taken, including a two-week unpaid suspension, as well as a no contact directive. Out of respect for the privacy of those involved, I won’t be sharing further details.”
He did not answer our questions about the comments.
The Department of Administrative Services provides Human Resources for the Department of Banking. They have done so since 2018.
A spokesperson replied to the following questions about Santamaria’s contact with victims and letting complainants know about discipline. The responses came through an email:
While we are unable to comment on specific employee situations, our general policy is clear: when an employee is restricted from contact with another, they are strictly forbidden from initiating any form of communication. This includes in-person interactions, gestures, and attempts to reach out in any way. If both individuals are present at a large event or gathering, the employee with the restriction must ensure they maintain physical distance and avoid all forms of engagement. Any violation of these guidelines is subject to serious disciplinary action.
Every complaint is reviewed thoroughly and addressed with professionalism, seriousness, and objectivity.
When an investigation substantiates a policy violation, the state follows a progressive disciplinary process. However, it is not standard practice for complainants to receive follow‑up regarding any disciplinary action that may have been taken. While this can understandably feel frustrating, it is a safeguard designed to ensure fairness for both the complainant and the employee involved.
Copyright 2026 WFSB. All rights reserved.
