Background: About the Lawsuit. In October 2006, a plaintiff joined an existing lawsuit pending in federal court in San Francisco brought by a Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Financial Advisor. That plaintiff alleged, among other things, that she was subjected to race discrimination. On August 2, 2007, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx- Xxxxx joined that complaint and added classwide race and color discrimination claims. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges discrimination by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx against African Americans and Latinos in compensation, account distributions, partnerships, acquisition of books of business of retiring Financial Advisors, and other business opportunities that were not afforded to African Americans and Latinos in a manner equal to their white counterparts. Plaintiff also claims that Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx denied her equal opportunities to acquire branch management positions, denied her equal terms and conditions of employment, and terminated her on the basis of race or color. Because this Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of a group, or “class” of African Americans and Latinos who have similar claims, she filed the case as a “class action,” and is referred to as “Named Plaintiff.” You can read all of the plaintiff’s claims in the Named Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which can be found at xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx denies that it discriminated against African Americans and Latinos or that it otherwise did anything wrong. The Company maintains that African Americans and Latinos were compensated based solely on their production, just as similarly situated white Financial Advisors were. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx also maintains that opportunities for movement from Registered Financial Advisor Trainee into Financial Advisor positions, and movement from Financial Advisor into branch management positions, were equally available to all employees, and that African Americans and Latinos were not denied equal terms and conditions of employment or terminated on the basis of their race or color. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx maintains that it does not allow or condone discrimination against African Americans and Latinos and that it is an equal opportunity employer. By entering into the proposed Settlement, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx does not admit any wrongdoing. The Court has not made and will not make any determination regarding whether or not Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx discriminated against African Americans and Latinos. This Notice should not be regarded as an expression of any opinion by the Court on the merits of an...
Background: About the Lawsuit. Three women, who are the “Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs” in this lawsuit, retained attorneys called “Class Counsel” to investigate claims of pregnancy discrimination at Walmart Inc., (formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and hereinafter “Walmart”). Two of these Named Plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that Walmart discriminated against them and a class of similarly situated women throughout the United States on the basis of pregnancy by denying their requests for accommodation in the workplace related to pregnancy from March 19, 2013 through March 5, 2014. For example, the Named Plaintiffs asked Walmart to be relieved from lifting heavy items at work during their pregnancies. The first of the Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges was filed on January 11, 2014. On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of a nationwide class of pregnant employees against Walmart pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”). In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that Walmart denied their requests for workplace accommodations related to pregnancy while granting accommodations to other employees similarly restricted in their ability to work without accommodations. In addition to the class claims asserted in the Complaint, the three Named Plaintiffs assert individual, non-class claims of retaliation against Walmart for allegedly retaliating against them for requesting workplace accommodations because of pregnancy. You can read all of the claims in the Amended Complaint, which can be found at . Walmart denies that it discriminated against pregnant workers or that it otherwise did anything wrong. By entering into the proposed Settlement, Walmart does not admit any wrongdoing. The Court has not determined and, if the Settlement is finally approved, will not determine whether Walmart discriminated against pregnant workers or otherwise did anything wrong. This Notice should not be regarded as an expression of the Court’s opinion on the merits of any claims or defenses of the Parties. No trial has occurred. The Court has made no finding or determination that Walmart has violated any law or obligation. Because the Named Plaintiffs and Walmart asked the Court to approve the Settlement, the Court will examine the Settlement Agreement to determine whether it is fair, adequate and reasonable to th...
