NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. In early August of 2016, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal, an African American Advisor employed by Chase, retained Class Counsel to represent him with respect to his individual and potential classwide claims of race discrimination and related retaliation in employment. Plaintiff Senegal alleged that African American and Black Advisors had been and were being assigned to less lucrative branches and denied business opportunities, among other things, because of race and had experienced race discrimination and related retaliation in other terms and conditions of their employment. B. Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation into the individual and classwide claims at issue. They conducted in-depth interviews of potential class members across the United States and reviewed and analyzed company documents and publicly-available information, including information about Chase, the financial services industry, and United States Census data reflecting the demographics of bank territories. C. As a result of its investigation, Class Counsel filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal on February 3, 2017; Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on February 28, 2017; and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on March 24, 2017. Plaintiffs ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ retained Class Counsel and agreed to serve as Class Representatives shortly thereafter, as Class Counsel’s investigation continued. Senegal, Williams, Griffin, Jason, Farrish, and ▇▇▇▇ are collectively referred to as Plaintiffs or Named Plaintiffs. D. In conjunction with this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will file the Complaint in the Court to initiate a putative class action on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of African American and Black Advisors, against the Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). E. In an effort to determine whether the Parties could settle this dispute prior to a lengthy litigation, the Parties’ counsel, who are experienced class action attorneys, participated in detailed and exhaustive discussions and negotiations, beginning in May of 2017. The parties also executed an agreement tolling and extending the statute of limitations periods and deadlines related to the Plaintiffs’ claims as of April 21, 2017. F. After exchanging information among counsel about the claims, the Parties engaged the services of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a former federal judge who currently serves as a mediator. Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ became familiar with the case and conducted two mediation sessions with the Parties and their counsel in New York. Thereafter, Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel conducted numerous telephone conferences and an in-person meeting in New York. The formal mediation sessions and follow-up settlement discussions and meetings between the Parties culminated in a settlement and the execution of this Settlement Agreement. During the negotiations, the Parties’ counsel bargained vigorously on behalf of their respective clients. All negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and in good faith. G. For settlement purposes, Class Counsel sought, and Defendant produced to Class Counsel, years of employment workforce data, relevant employment policies, and related documents concerning the Advisor workforce and work practices relevant to the claims asserted and damages sought by Plaintiffs and the Class. Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs studied and analyzed the documents and information produced and retained a labor economist from the University of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs’ expert studied and analyzed over four years of workforce data and publicly available census data, in order to calculate rates of representation, attrition and compensation by race, the assignment of geographical territory by race, and to prepare damages models based on the claims at issue. Class Counsel also conducted extensive factual and legal research in order to properly evaluate the claims and Defendant’s defenses in light of the factual record. H. Counsel for the Defendant conducted its own substantial investigation of the matter, including the facts underlying the claims and issues raised in the charges and the Complaint. The investigation included, among other things, reviewing a substantial number of relevant company records and retaining a labor economist to review relevant data. I. As a result of the substantial exchange of information, the investigations, and other activity, counsel for the Parties are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and have had a full opportunity to assess the litigation risks presented in this Action. J. Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions to compel arbitration and discovery, motions for class certification, formal discovery, motions for summary judgment, trial, and potential appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each party with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, and have decided that an amicable settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement is more beneficial to them than continued litigation. Class Counsel believes that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are in the best interests of the Class and are fair, reasonable, and adequate. K. Defendant specifically and generally denies all of the claims asserted in the Action, denies any and all liability or wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever associated with any of the facts or claims alleged in the Action, and makes no concession or admission of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever. This Settlement Agreement does not, and is not intended to constitute, nor shall it be deemed to constitute, an admission by any party as to the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses of any party in this case. By entering into this Agreement, Defendant does not admit or concede, expressly or impliedly, but instead denies that it has in any way violated Title VII, Section 1981, or any parallel federal, state and local laws prohibiting race discrimination or retaliation, the common law of any jurisdiction, or any other federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or executive order, or any other obligation or duty at law or in equity. Neither the Court nor any other court has made any findings or expressed any opinion concerning the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses in this Action. L. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement, nor any action taken in implementation thereof, nor any statements, discussions or communications between the parties, nor any materials prepared, exchanged, issued or used during the course of the mediation or negotiations leading to this Settlement Agreement, is intended by the Parties to, nor shall any of the foregoing constitute, be introduced, be used or be admissible in any way in this case or any other judicial, arbitral, administrative, investigative or other proceeding of whatsoever kind or nature (including, without limitation, the results of the Claims Process established under this Settlement Agreement), as evidence of discrimination, retaliation or harassment or as evidence of any violation of Title VII , Section ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ and local laws prohibiting race discrimination or retaliation, the common law of any jurisdiction, or any other federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or executive order, or any obligation or duty at law or in equity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Settlement Agreement may be used in any proceeding in the Court or in mediation to enforce or implement any provision of this Settlement Agreement or implement any orders or judgments of the Court entered in connection herewith.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Settlement Agreement
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. In early August of 2016Named Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Plaintiff an African American Financial Advisor employed by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal, an African American Advisor employed by Chase▇▇▇▇▇, retained Class Counsel to represent him against ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ in connection with respect what he believed to his be individual and potential classwide claims of systemic race discrimination and related retaliation in employment. Plaintiff Senegal alleged that African American and Black Advisors had been and were being assigned to less lucrative branches and denied business opportunities, among other things, because of race and had experienced race discrimination and related retaliation in other terms and conditions of their employmentdiscrimination.
B. Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation into the individual and classwide class- wide claims at issue. They conducted in-depth interviews of potential class members across the United States and reviewed and analyzed company documents and publicly-publicly available information, including information about Chase▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, the financial services industry, and United States Census data reflecting the demographics of bank financial advisor office territories.
C. As a result of its investigation, Class Counsel filed charges a representative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal on February 3November 23, 2017; Plaintiff 2016.
D. On May 24, 2018, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed the Complaint to initiate a putative class action on February 28, 2017; behalf of himself and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on March 24, 2017a nationwide class of African American Financial Advisors (“FAs”) against the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs Dkt. 1. The Complaint alleged that ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ employed Firm-wide policies and practices that harm African American FAs and result in significant racial disparities in pay and attrition.
E. On July 27, 2018, the Complaint was amended (the “Amended Complaint”) to add Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ individual and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ retained Class Counsel class claims of disparate treatment and agreed to serve as Class Representatives shortly thereafter, as Class Counsel’s investigation continued. Senegal, Williams, Griffin, Jason, Farrish, and ▇▇▇▇ are collectively referred to as Plaintiffs or Named Plaintiffs.
D. In conjunction with this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will file the Complaint in the Court to initiate a putative class action on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of African American and Black Advisors, against the Defendant disparate impact discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”).
E. In an effort to determine whether the Parties could settle this dispute prior to a lengthy litigation, the Parties’ counsel, who are experienced class action attorneys, participated in detailed and exhaustive discussions and negotiations, beginning in May of 2017. The parties Amended Complaint also executed an agreement tolling added Named Plaintiff and extending the statute of limitations periods and deadlines related to the Plaintiffs’ claims as of April 21, 2017.
F. After exchanging information among counsel about the claims, the Parties engaged the services of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a former federal judge who currently serves as a mediator. Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ became familiar with the case and conducted two mediation sessions with the Parties and their counsel in New York. Thereafter, Putative Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel conducted numerous telephone conferences and an in-person meeting in New York. The formal mediation sessions and follow-up settlement discussions and meetings between the Parties culminated in a settlement and the execution of this Settlement Agreement. During the negotiations, the Parties’ counsel bargained vigorously on behalf of their respective clients. All negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and in good faith.
G. For settlement purposes, Class Counsel sought, and Defendant produced to Class Counsel, years of employment workforce data, relevant employment policies, and related documents concerning the Advisor workforce and work practices relevant to the claims asserted and damages sought by Plaintiffs and the Class. Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs studied and analyzed the documents and information produced and retained a labor economist from the University of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs’ expert studied and analyzed over four years of workforce data and publicly available census data, in order to calculate rates of representation, attrition and compensation by race, the assignment of geographical territory by race, and to prepare damages models based on the claims at issue. Class Counsel also conducted extensive factual and legal research in order to properly evaluate the claims and Defendant’s defenses in light of the factual record.
H. Counsel for the Defendant conducted its own substantial investigation of the matter, including the facts underlying the claims and issues raised in the charges and the Complaint. The investigation included, among other things, reviewing a substantial number of relevant company records and retaining a labor economist to review relevant data.
I. As a result of the substantial exchange of information, the investigations, and other activity, counsel for the Parties are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and have had a full opportunity to assess the litigation risks presented in this Action.
J. Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions to compel arbitration and discovery, motions for class certification, formal discovery, motions for summary judgment, trial, and potential appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each party with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, and have decided that an amicable settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement is more beneficial to them than continued litigation. Class Counsel believes that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are in the best interests of the Class and are fair, reasonable, and adequate.
K. Defendant specifically and generally denies all of the claims asserted in the Action, denies any and all liability or wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever associated with any of the facts or claims alleged in the Action, and makes no concession or admission of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever. This Settlement Agreement does not, and is not intended to constitute, nor shall it be deemed to constitute, an admission by any party as to the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses of any party in this case. By entering into this Agreement, Defendant does not admit or concede, expressly or impliedly, but instead denies that it has in any way violated Title VII, Section 1981, or any parallel federal, state and local laws prohibiting race discrimination or retaliation, the common law of any jurisdiction, or any other federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or executive order, or any other obligation or duty at law or in equity. Neither the Court nor any other court has made any findings or expressed any opinion concerning the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses in this Action.
L. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement, nor any action taken in implementation thereof, nor any statements, discussions or communications between the parties, nor any materials prepared, exchanged, issued or used during the course of the mediation or negotiations leading to this Settlement Agreement, is intended by the Parties to, nor shall any of the foregoing constitute, be introduced, be used or be admissible in any way in this case or any other judicial, arbitral, administrative, investigative or other proceeding of whatsoever kind or nature (including, without limitation, the results of the Claims Process established under this Settlement Agreement), as evidence of discrimination, retaliation or harassment or as evidence of any violation of Title VII , Section ▇▇▇▇, ▇Representative ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇, who also filed a representative charge of discrimination with the EEOC on September 14, 2018. Dkt. 9.
F. On September 25, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, denying the allegations therein. Dkt. 25. On September 25, 2018, Defendant also filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or, Alternatively, to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 22.
G. On November 26, 2018, after Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ received her Notice of Right to ▇▇▇ from the EEOC, Plaintiffs filed a second amended Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”) with leave of Court, to add Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇’▇ individual and local laws prohibiting race class-wide claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination or retaliationpursuant to Title VII and to add Named Plaintiff and Putative Class Representative ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Dkt. 33. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ also filed a representative charge of discrimination with the EEOC on November 23, the common law 2018.
H. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a third amended Complaint (“Third Amended Complaint”), with Defendant’s consent, to add Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇’▇ individual and class-wide claims of any jurisdictiondisparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination pursuant to Title VII and state laws, or any other federaland to dismiss The ▇▇▇▇▇ Financial Companies, state or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or executive order, or any obligation or duty at law or in equityL.L.L.P. as a defendant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Settlement Agreement may be used in any proceeding in the Court or in mediation to enforce or implement any provision of this Settlement Agreement or implement any orders or judgments of the Court entered in connection herewithDkt. 111.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Settlement Agreement