University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. MORGAN STANLEY EE-NY-0106
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-08421-RMB-RLE ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2001, the New York District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are ... read more >
In September 2001, the New York District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. However, it appears from an EEOC press release that the complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against the charging party, a female employee, and up to one hundred other women on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the defendant had a practice of paying female employees less than males for equal work and by restricting their opportunities for promotion and advancement. The charging party intervened in the suit in October 2001. After some scheduling orders and discovery, the defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment in November 2002 which was denied in December. The parties participated in several settlement conferences throughout March, April, and May 2003. After several more motions for summary judgment, the parties submitted a proposed consent decree to the court in July 2004. In September 2005, the court finally approved the terms of the consent decree, and the case was settled.

The decree has a duration of three years and contained non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses. In addition, the decree required the defendant to: pay $54 million, provide anti-discrimination training, appoint an ombudsperson to implement the decree, report to the EEOC annually, and hire an outside monitor to review its anti-discrimination policies and procedures. Additionally, the defendant was required to implement programs to increase the promotion opportunities of high performance female employees.

Keri Livingston - 07/10/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2007
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:01-cv-08421-RMB-RLE (S.D.N.Y.) 10/05/2005
EE-NY-0106-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
EEOC Files Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley 09/10/2001
EE-NY-0106-0001.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 07/12/2004
EE-NY-0106-0004.pdf | Detail
EEOC Litigation Settlement Report- July 2004 11/15/2004
EE-NY-0106-0002.pdf | Detail
Office of General Counsel FY 2004 Annual Report - Summary of Accomplishments 10/18/2005
EE-NY-0106-0003.pdf | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -