On March 31, 2005, a female employee of Citigroup Global Markets and its subsidiary, Smith Barney, filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, charging Citigroup and Smith Barney with discriminating against female financial advisors on the basis of gender with respect to business opportunities, compensation, professional support and other terms and conditions of employment. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that Smith Barney's policies and practices had locked in and perpetuated past discrimination, caused "cumulative advantage" effects, and caused branch management to discriminate against female brokers. Furthermore, Smith Barney refused to change policies or practices that it knew to be discriminatory against women.
On November 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, better articulating their concerns and defining the putative class as all female Financial Advisors employed by Smith Barney in the United States at any time after August 30, 2003, and adding a subclass consisting of all female Financial Advisors employed by Smith Barney in California at any time after June 25, 2003.
On May 1, 2008, after a series of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement. The stipulated to - and later approved - class was as follows:
All women employed as Financial Advisors in (i) the United States branches of
Smith Barney’s retail brokerage division at any time from August 30, 2003 through March 1, 2008 or (ii) the California branches of Smith Barney’s retail brokerage division at any time from June 25, 2003 through March 1, 2008.
The settlement included $33 million settlement for the 2,411 members of the Settlement Class in a gender discrimination case against Smith Barney. In addition to the monetary compensation, the settlement included comprehensive injunctive relief for four years designed to increase business opportunities and promote equality in compensation for female brokers.
The Northern District Court of California (Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton) approved the Settlement and Class on August 13, 2008, finding that the the terms embodied in the agreement were fair, reasonable, and adequate as required by law, and that proper notice to the class was given. Also on August 13, Court entered the final order and judgment in this matter, but retained continuing jurisdiction over the settlement.
On September 31, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to transfer the jurisdiction of the case to the District of Columbia. This was done so that the case could be consolidated with another case, Augst-Johnson, et al v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Incorporated, Case No. 1:06-CV-01142 (RWR) (D.D.C.); so that a Consolidated Settlement Agreement could be considered. On October 3, the Court the Court approved the stipulation and proposed order, and ordered that continuing jurisdiction of this case be transferred to the District of Columbia.
The case is closed.
Jenna Chai - 07/25/2010
Michael Beech - 03/09/2019
compress summary
