Case Employment History Sexual Discrimination Failure to Respond Sexual Harassment Retaliation Counts

Complaint: Discrimination Case

Morgan Stanley > Gender Discrimination > Complaint > Discrimination Case

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

Wayne N. Outten (WO 0638)
1740 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10019
(212) 245-1000

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor Allison Schieffelin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
- against -
MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., and
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER & CO.,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------

ALLISON SCHIEFFELIN,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
- against -
MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., and
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER & CO.,
Defendants.

----------------------------------

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
Index No. 01 CV 8421 (RMB)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff-Intervenor Allison Schieffelin, by her attorneys, Outten & Golden LLP, alleges and avers as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This employment discrimination and equal rights lawsuit is brought against Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (collectively, “Morgan Stanley” or “Defendants”) under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290 et seq. (“State HRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et seq. (“City HRL”).

2. Ms. Schieffelin has filed this lawsuit because Morgan Stanley has maintained a discriminatory workplace in which she and other female employees have encountered a glass ceiling; these women were denied promotions and compensation commensurate with men. In addition, Ms. Schieffelin has suffered retaliation for opposing Morgan Stanley’s unlawful employment practices.

3. Ms. Schieffelin began work for Morgan Stanley as an Associate in 1986. During her first decade at Morgan Stanley, Ms. Schieffelin was a superior performer, receiving periodic promotions and compensation increases, despite various discriminatory practices described later.

4. About 1996, Ms. Schieffelin hit the glass ceiling. Ms. Schieffelin was denied compensation commensurate with similarly situated men. Morgan Stanley refused to promote her to Managing Director, choosing instead to repeatedly promote men who were less or no more qualified than Ms. Schieffelin. In March 1998, Ms. Schieffelin’s boss told her that it was unlikely she would ever be promoted to Managing Director. The denial of promotion to Managing Director effectively limited Ms. Schieffelin’s opportunities and her compensation.

5. In September 1998, Ms. Schieffelin, through counsel, complained of discrimination to the president of Morgan Stanley and stated her intention to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Morgan Stanley immediately began a campaign of retaliation against Ms. Schieffelin by, among other things, reducing her duties, responsibilities,and authority, and interfering with her ability to perform her job. In October 2000, Morgan Stanley completed its campaign of retaliation against Ms. Schieffelin by terminating her employment on pretextual grounds.

PARTIES

6. Ms. Schieffelin, a female born on May 13, 1961, resides in the City and State of New York. She is a citizen of the United States.

7. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (“Morgan Stanley”) are corporations with offices within this judicial district and elsewhere. Morgan Stanley is an international securities firm that provides a broad range of financial services to corporations, financial institutions, and other institutional and individual investors.

8. Ms. Schieffelin was employed by Morgan Stanley from July 1986 to October 24, 2000.

9. The Institutional Equity Division (“IED”) of Morgan Stanley is engaged in selling and trading stocks and other equity-related products.

10. The Convertible Department of the IED ("the Convertible Department" or "the Department") is engaged in selling and trading convertible bonds, convertible preferred stock, and related securities.

11. Since 1990, Ms. Schieffelin worked in the Convertible Department of the IED.

12. At all times relevant to this action, Morgan Stanley has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce. 13. At all times relevant to this action, Morgan Stanley has employed more than five hundred (500) people.

14. Morgan Stanley meets the definition of “employer” under Title VII, the State HRL, and the City HRL.

JURISDICTION

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, because it arises under the laws of the United States and is brought to recover damages for deprivation of equal rights. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the State HRL and City HRL claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims and are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

16. Ms. Schieffelin has complied fully with any and all prerequisites to jurisdiction in this Court under Title VII, the State HRL, and the City HRL.

17. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Complaint, Ms. Schieffelin has mailed a copy of this Complaint, along with a letter of explanation, to the New York City Commission of Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, satisfying the notice requirements of Section 8-502 of the New York City Administrative Code.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

First EEOC Determination

18. On November 12, 1998, Ms. Schieffelin filed a timely charge of discrimination against Morgan Stanley with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaining of the unlawful actions described herein (hereinafter, “the Initial Charge”). Ms. Schieffelin supplemented that charge three times, on or about December 14, 1998, November 23, 1999, and February 11, 2000, in which she alleged further discrimination and retaliation (hereinafter, collectively, “the Initial Charges”).

19. On or about June 5, 2000, the EEOC, after investigation, issued its Letter of Determination with respect to the Initial Charges. The EEOC “determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that [Morgan Stanley] discriminated against [Ms. Schieffelin] and a class of similarly situated females in the IED and that [Morgan Stanley] engaged in retaliation toward [Ms. Schieffelin], in violation of Title VII.” Specifically, the EEOC found the following: Evidence of record, including documents and witness testimony, indicates that [Morgan Stanley] subjected [Ms. Schieffelin] and a class of similarly situated female employees in the Institutional Equity Division (“IED”) to a pattern and practice of discrimination because of their sex. The evidence indicates that [Morgan Stanley] subjected [Ms. Schieffelin] and a class of similarly situated female employees to a pattern and practice of disparate treatment regarding compensation, promotions, and terms and conditions of employment. Evidence of record also indicates that [Ms. Schieffelin] has been retaliated against as alleged.

Second EEOC Determination

20. On or about August 3, 2000, Ms. Schieffelin filed a second timely charge of discrimination against Morgan Stanley with the EEOC, complaining of further discrimination and retaliation (hereinafter, “the Second Charge”). Ms. Schieffelin supplemented this charge on or about October 25, 2000, with respect to further discrimination and retaliation, including Morgan Stanley’s termination of her employment on October 24, 2000 (hereinafter, collectively, “the Second Charges”).

21. On or about March 7, 2001, the EEOC, after investigation, issued its Letter of Determination with respect to Ms. Schieffelin’s Second Charges. The EEOC “determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that [Morgan Stanley] engaged in retaliation and sex discrimination toward [Ms. Schieffelin] in violation of Title VII.” Specifically, the EEOC found the following: Evidence of record indicates that [Morgan Stanley’s] justification for its treatment and termination of [Ms. Schieffelin] is pretextual. [Morgan Stanley’s] assertion of performance problems does not appear credible in light of its reduction of information and resources which it had previously provided to [Ms. Schieffelin], and in fact, [Morgan Stanley] justifies its removal of [Ms. Schieffelin] from training and recruiting assignments by referencing that her attorney had made statements to the press about her original charge. [Morgan Stanley’s] justification for its termination of [Ms. Schieffelin], insubordination, is not credible in light of the circumstances.

EEOC Federal Court Complaint

22. On September 10, 2001, the EEOC filed a Complaint in this Court against Morgan Stanley alleging, among other things, that Morgan Stanley engaged in unlawful employment practices against Ms. Schieffelin and a class of similarly situated women at Morgan Stanley.

23. Ms. Schieffelin seeks to intervene in the proceeding commenced by the EEOC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

VENUE

24. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because Morgan Stanley has offices, conducts business, and can be found in this district, and the causes of action arose and the acts and omissions complained of occurred therein.