Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

256 F.R.D. 124, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31152
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 12, 2004
DocketCivil Action No. 01-CIV-8421 (RMB)
StatusPublished

This text of 256 F.R.D. 124 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 256 F.R.D. 124, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31152 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Opinion

CONSENT DECREE

RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge.

This action was filed on September 10, 2001, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), an agency of the United States, alleging that Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (collectively “Morgan Stanley”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Alison Schieffelin (“Schieffelin”), a woman, and other women in Morgan Stanley’s Institutional Equity Division world wide (“IED”) at the levels of (i) Exempt Non-Officer eligible to be promoted to Vice-President (including but not limited to Associate and Professional); (ii) Vice-President; (iii) Principal or Executive and (iv) Managing Director, by failing to fairly promote and compensate them and by discriminating against them in terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The Commission further alleged that Morgan Stanley retaliated against and terminated Schieffehn for asserting her rights under Title VII by complaining about sex discrimination (hereinafter “the EEOC Complaint”). On October 15, 2001, Schieffehn was granted leave to intervene as a plaintiff and filed her own Complaint, alleging violations of Title VII as well as state and local anti-discrimination laws (hereinafter “the Schieffehn Complaint”). Collectively EEOC, Morgan Stanley and Schieffehn are referred to as the “parties.”

Morgan Stanley denies any wrongdoing or liability to EEOC or Schieffehn and contends that it has, at all times, treated its women employees and Schieffehn fairly and equitably in all terms, conditions and privileges of employment, including promotion and compensation.

The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to fully resolve this matter without further htigation.

In consideration of the mutual promises of each party to this Consent Decree, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed and ORDERED:

Section 1: Jurisdiction

1. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met.

2. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this Court to enforce this Consent Decree.

Section 2: Scope of the Consent Decree

3. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised by EEOC Charge Numbers 160-99-0423, 160-A0-2451 as amended, 160-2004-000974 and 160-A3-000865, and the EEOC Complaint, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims raised in the EEOC Complaint. EEOC hereby releases Morgan Stanley with respect to any and ah such claims. This Consent Decree also constitutes a resolution of all claims that were or could [125]*125have been raised by Schieffelin against Morgan Stanley, as described in Section 6 below. EEOC and Morgan Stanley further agree that this Consent Decree does not resolve any Charges that may be pending with EEOC other than those specifically referred to in this paragraph or those that may be released by claimants in the Claims Process set forth in Section 7 below. Nothing in this Consent Decree should be construed to preclude EEOC’s right to process, in accordance with its procedures, such pending and any future charges filed against Morgan Stanley under Title VII.

4. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for three years from the date of its entry.

5. Unless otherwise indicated, this Consent Decree governs only IED.

6. As used herein, “Covered Employees” are defined as: (a) women employed in the United States in IED at the levels of (i) Exempt Non-officer eligible to be promoted to Vice-President (including but not limited to Associate and Professional), (ii) Vice President, (in) Principal or Executive Director or (iv) Managing Director and (b) female American citizens employed in IED at those levels in offices outside of the United States (hereinafter “Covered Employees”). The term “covered position” means those positions identified in (i) through (iv) of this paragraph.

Section S: No Admission or Determination of the Merits

7. This Consent Decree does not constitute and shall not be deemed to be an admission by any party about the merits, validity or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims or defenses of any other party. By entering into this Consent Decree, Morgan Stanley does not admit, but in fact denies, that it has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) and any other fair employment practice law. Section Injunctions

8. Morgan Stanley and its agents are enjoined during the term of this Consent Decree from violating Title VII by discriminating against Covered Employees in promotion and compensation on the basis of their sex.

9. Morgan Stanley and its agents are enjoined from violating Title VII by retaliating against women employees for asserting any rights under Title VII or participating in this case as claimants, witnesses or in any other way.

Section 5: Monetary Relief

10. Morgan Stanley shall pay a Total Settlement Amount of $54 million. Of that sum, $40 million shall be paid within 30 days of the entry of this Consent Decree into a Claim Fund to be used to pay awards to claimants pursuant to the Claims Process described in Section 7 below. That $40 million sum shall be deposited into a bank account bearing an interest rate in effect at such bank for commercial, interest-bearing short-term accounts. Any interest earned on the account shall become part of the Claim Fund. Of the Total Settlement Amount, $2 million shall be spent on costs incurred in implementing Sections 10 through 16 of this Consent Decree.

11. The Fund Administrator, a Morgan Stanley employee, shall be responsible for distributions from the Claim Fund, which shall be made in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree, and only upon agreement of EEOC and Morgan Stanley or by order of the Court. Upon five days notice, EEOC may inspect the records of the Claim Fund.

Section 6: Relief for Allison Schieffelin

12. EEOC, in its sole discretion and without Morgan Stanley’s involvement, has allocated $12 million of the Total Settlement Amount to Schieffelin to resolve all her claims regarding termination of her employment.

13. Schieffelin retains the right to submit a claim to the Special Master in the Claims Process described in Section 7 for (a) discrimination on the basis of sex in promotion, compensation, or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, and (b) retaliation occurring between January 1,1995 and October 24, 2000, excluding any claims related to the termination of her employment.

14. Schieffelin and Morgan Stanley have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which will be “so ordered” by the Court, and [126]*126Schieffelin may seek enforcement of this Section of the Consent Decree.

Section 7: Claims Process

15. EEOC and Morgan Stanley have selected Judge Abner J. Mikva as a Special Master to determine the appropriate awards, if any, to be paid to claimants from the Claim Fund and thereby to avoid further adversarial court proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 F.R.D. 124, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-morgan-stanley-co-nysd-2004.