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

Complaint: Retaliation

Morgan Stanley > Gender Discrimination > Complaint > Retaliation after EEOC Charge

MORGAN STANLEY’S RETALIATORY RESPONSE TO MS. SCHIEFFELIN’S EEOC CHARGE

113. On or about November 6, 1998, Morgan Stanley filed a “Statement of Claim” against Ms. Schieffelin with the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) seeking declaratory judgment against Ms. Schieffelin in arbitration.

114. On or about March 12, 1999, the NYSE rejected Morgan Stanley’s bid for arbitration.

115. On or about April 26, 1999, the NYSE explained that Morgan Stanley’s “Claim was not a proper subject matter for arbitration.”

116. Promptly after Ms. Schieffelin sent her Complaint Letter and notified Morgan Stanley of her intention to file her EEOC charge, Morgan Stanley initiated a retaliatory campaign to diminish, demean, humiliate, embarrass, isolate, and ostracize Ms. Schieffelin in the workplace.

117. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished Ms. Schieffelin’s role in recruiting, training and teaching professionals -- despite the fact that she had been widely praised for nearly a decade for her extraordinary efforts in these areas.

118. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished Ms. Schieffelin’s role in connection with the “Virtual Roadshow.”

119. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished Ms. Schieffelin’s access to the day-to-day flow of information. This included information with respect to securities, trades, clients, and new issues.

120. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished the quality of the service provided to Ms. Schieffelin and her clients by the firm’s traders. The traders were sometimes unwilling or slow to acknowledge her requests for bids and offers and sometimes gave her clients bids and offers that were not the best available.

121. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished the relative size of Ms. Schieffelin’s clients’ allocations on new issues.

122. Morgan Stanley substantially diminished the quality of the “back-up” services provided to Ms. Schieffelin’s clients when she was away from the desk.

123. Ms. Schieffelin's co-workers often were unwilling to provide her with routine updates or information about trading developments that had transpired when she was away from the desk.

124. In a meeting about August 1999, Mr. Bosco accused Ms. Schieffelin, in the presence of her colleagues, of putting Morgan Stanley at a competitive disadvantage by filing EEOC charges against the firm.

125. About September 1999, Mr. Bosco screamed at Ms. Schieffelin, in the presence of her colleagues, for engaging in customer communications that had been authorized by Frank Pratt.

126. Mr. Pratt consistently failed to communicate with Ms. Schieffelin about important matters, including trades with clients she covered.

127. Mr. Pratt consistently failed to inform Ms. Schieffelin when he would be away from the desk, a failure that hindered her ability to fulfill her role as back-up for certain clients of Mr. Pratt.

128. On or about January 4, 2000, Mr. Pratt publicly screamed at Ms. Schieffelin for an error that had occurred with a client because of his failure to communicate with her; Mr. Pratt falsely told the client that Ms. Schieffelin had committed the error.

129. By his disparagement and mistreatment of Ms. Schieffelin, Mr. Pratt diminished Ms. Schieffelin’s standing within Morgan Stanley and with its clients.

130. On or about July 7, 2000, Ms. Ebers publicly accused Ms. Schieffelin of engaging in “unconscionable” conduct with respect to a transaction. In fact, Ms. Schieffelin’s conduct had been entirely appropriate.

131. Ms. Schieffelin was publicly berated for allegedly making errors that were non-existent or inconsequential.

132. Through their openly hostile behavior toward Ms. Schieffelin, senior management sent a message to others that they could curry favor with management by treating Ms. Schieffelin in a similar manner. Management encouraged, condoned, and /or permitted such retaliatory conduct by other employees.

133. On or about January 10, 2000, Ms. Schieffelin’s reporting arrangements were changed so that she no longer reported directly to the head of the Convertible Department, Mr. Pratt, but instead reported to two new Managing Directors, Mr. Pipa and Ms. Ebers, who in turn reported to Mr. Pratt.

134. After that change, Ms. Schieffelin was excluded from meetings and discussions on various important matters, including but not limited to new deals, prospective issuers, convertible desk operations, and developments throughout the IED and all of Morgan Stanley.

135. Due to the foregoing, Ms. Schieffelin’s standing within Morgan Stanley and with its clients was diminished and she was effectively demoted.

136. During 2000, some of Ms. Schieffelin’s accounts were reassigned to other salespeople in the Convertible Department.

137. These reassignments resulted directly from Morgan Stanley’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct toward Ms. Schieffelin.

138. An executive at one of the reassigned clients acknowledged to Ms. Schieffelin that he had requested reassignment because his ability to conduct business with Morgan Stanley through Ms. Schieffelin had been hindered by the firm’s poor treatment of Ms. Schieffelin.

139. A male salesperson in the Convertible Department told Ms. Schieffelin that she was being removed as back-up on another account because he was “not comfortable” working with Ms. Schieffelin due to her “situation”-- an obvious reference to her charges of discrimination against Morgan Stanley.

140. Soon thereafter, senior management publicly announced on the desk that Ms. Schieffelin was strictly prohibited from any communications whatsoever with that client on any topic.

141. On information and belief, such a directive was without precedent during Ms. Schieffelin's entire tenure in the Convertible Department. Such a notorious ban branded Ms. Schieffelin as an outcast and further marginalized her in the Department.

142. That directive had the effect -- and, on information and belief, the purpose -- of preventing Ms. Schieffelin from having access to information about a series of questionable transactions between Morgan Stanley and that client.

143. Prior to filing her Initial Charge, Ms. Schieffelin had consistently received excellent mid-year and year-end performance reviews. After filing her Initial Charge, the reviews became substantially more negative.

144. On information and belief, after Ms. Schieffelin filed her Initial Charge, her compensation declined relative to her closest peers in the Convertible Department.

145. On information and belief, after Ms. Schieffelin filed her Initial Charge, her compensation increases did not keep pace with her increased production or with the increased profitability of the Convertible Department, the Institutional Equity Division, or Morgan Stanley.

146. The foregoing retaliatory actions created a hostile work environment for Ms. Schieffelin.

147. These retaliatory actions impeded Ms. Schieffelin’s ability to perform her job and adversely affected the terms and conditions of her employment.

Morgan Stanley’s Pretextual Termination of Ms. Schieffelin’s Employment

148. On information and belief, after Ms. Schieffelin's Complaint Letter and her Initial Charge, Morgan Stanley began searching for a plausible excuse to terminate her employment.

149. On or about October 10, 2000, Ms. Schieffelin and Ms. Ebers engaged in a brief verbal argument. Ms. Ebers precipitated and provoked the incident by unjustly criticizing Ms. Schieffelin -- one of a long series of unjust criticisms.

150. During that exchange, Ms. Schieffelin reminded Ms. Ebers of Ms. Ebers' frequent complaints to Ms. Schieffelin and others about gender discrimination at Morgan Stanley prior to the filing of Ms. Schieffelin's Initial Charge. Ms. Schieffelin stated that Ms. Ebers had been the beneficiary of Ms. Schieffelin’s efforts to improve the status of women at Morgan Stanley by, among other things, filing her Initial Charge.

151. Ms. Ebers responded to Ms. Schieffelin’s reference to their shared experience with gender discrimination by angrily challenging Ms. Schieffelin, “why don’t you just leave?”

152. Ms. Schieffelin responded by stating that she was “determined” to continue her career at Morgan Stanley.

153. Almost two weeks later, on October 24, 2000, Morgan Stanley terminated Ms. Schieffelin’s employment, effective immediately.

154. Despite Ms. Schieffelin’s unblemished fourteen-year employment record, Morgan Stanley never asked Ms. Schieffelin her version of the episode with Ms. Ebers -- even though twelve days had elapsed between the episode and the termination.

155. Morgan Stanley gave Ms. Schieffelin no notice of her termination, escorted her off the premises immediately, and did not even allow her to return to her desk to retrieve her personal belongings -- again, even though twelve days had elapsed between the episode and the termination.

156. Morgan Stanley asserted that it discharged Ms. Schieffelin because she engaged in “verbally abusive and insubordinate” behavior.

157. Ms. Schieffelin’s behavior was neither verbally abusive nor insubordinate.

158. Morgan Stanley’s asserted basis for terminating Ms. Schieffelin’s employment was pretextual.

159. Unpleasant verbal exchanges on the IED trading floor were common. On information and belief, no IED employee was ever terminated for comparable and worse actions -- including episodes involving screaming, the use of profanities, physical threats, physical altercations, and property damage. Indeed, on information and belief, no IED employee was ever subjected to any significant disciplinary action for any such conduct.

160. All of the foregoing conduct by Morgan Stanley constitutes unlawful discrimination and retaliation against Ms. Schieffelin and was malicious and in reckless disregard of Ms. Schieffelin's rights.

161. All of the foregoing conduct by Morgan Stanley was part of a pattern and practice of discrimination by Morgan Stanley against female professionals in the IED.

Ms. Schieffelin’s Losses Resulting From Morgan Stanley’s Discrimination and Retaliation

162. As a result of Morgan Stanley’s discrimination and retaliation, Ms. Schieffelin has suffered substantial loss of income and employment-related benefits. Since at least 1996, Morgan Stanley has paid Ms. Schieffelin less than it would have paid her if she had not been subjected to gender discrimination and retaliation.

163. As a result of Morgan Stanley’s discrimination and retaliation, Ms. Schieffelin has suffered substantial harm to her reputation in the financial community, adverse effects on her career, diminished earning capacity, and substantial emotional harm and distress.