Skip to content
Our team has decades of experience serving people across the state and throughout the country.
Madison Office: (608) 257-0040
Milwaukee Office: (414) 271-8650
Get a Free Case Screening
Hawks Quindel, S.C. Logo
  • Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment
    • Family & Divorce
    • Labor Law
    • Social Security
    • Employee Benefits
    • Wage & Hour
    • Workers' Compensation
    • STD/LTD Benefits
    • Employment Contracts
    • Duty Disability
  • About the Firm
    • Mission & Values
    • What to Expect
    • Firm History
    • Community Involvement
    • Careers
    • Workplace Culture
    • Offices
      • Milwaukee
      • Madison
      • Chicago
      • Appleton
      • Waukesha
  • Blog
  • News & Victories
  • En Español
    • La Compensación Laboral
    • Ley Laboral
    • Ley de Permiso de Auscencia Médica o Familiar
    • Sueldos y Salarios
  • Contact
  • Search

Class Actions Can Challenge Discriminatory Job Practices

Home  >  Blog  >  Class Actions Can Challenge Discriminatory Job Practices

October 7, 2014 | By Hawks Quindel, S.C.
Class Actions Can Challenge Discriminatory Job Practices

Sometimes workplace discrimination is not obvious or intentional. In some cases, discrimination results from a seemingly neutral policy that, in fact, serves to discriminate a class of people based on their race, gender, or other characteristics. Because such policies can harm all members of a protected class, employees can turn to class actions to challenge discriminatory policies together. Class actions are invaluable legal tools because when a group of employees join together to protest a common policy, it can force an employer to take notice. In addition, employees trying to show a policy affects members of a certain group differently can show this effect best with information about the entire group. Finally, employees often fear retaliation when they are the only person speaking up about discrimination; class actions harness the strength in numbers, making them a powerful way to challenge discriminatory policies. A recent class of African-American employees fighting back against unfair policies at Merrill Lynch points the way for employees seeking to challenge discrimination in court. These employees successfully showed some of Merrill Lynch’s seemingly neutral policies could have a harmful impact on all African-American brokers.

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch – An Example of a Class Action Discrimination Lawsuit

In McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, a group of African-American brokers brought a class action lawsuit alleging Merrill Lynch’s policy for forming internal teams was racially discriminatory. At Merrill Lynch, brokers were allowed to form “teams” to share clients. Merrill Lynch’s policy let individual brokers form these teams on their own; once a team was formed, the team could decide whether they wanted to admit a new member. Membership on a team could affect a broker’s performance, pay, and promotions. The problem with this policy? Plaintiffs said it aggravated racial discrimination. Since there were no criteria for how team members were selected, brokers tended to select team members of the same racial group. So even though there was no intentional discrimination by management, allowing the brokers to choose their own teams enabled racial discrimination by individuals. The Seventh Circuit allowed the African-American brokers to bring this lawsuit as a class. The court observed how this teaming policy could result in racial discrimination that harmed the brokers:
If as a result of racial preference at the team level black brokers employed by Merrill Lynch find it hard to join teams, or at least good teams, and as a result don’t generate as much revenue or attract and retain as many clients as white brokers do, then they will not do well in the competition for account[s]…either; and a kind of vicious cycle will set in.
The court decided that whether the “incremental causal effect” of the company’s teaming policy had a discriminatory impact could best be decided on a class-wide basis. Judge Posner made clear even though there was no evidence Merrill Lynch purposefully discriminated against African American brokers, if the teaming policy had a discriminatory impact, it may still be a violation of the law, and one that could be considered on a class-wide basis. McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch settled in 2013. Merrill Lynch agreed to make some policy changes to address these issues, and to pay out settlement awards to the class of African-American brokers.

Recent Cases Challenging Discriminatory Policies in the Workplace

There are other groups of employees challenging discriminatory policies who have sued as a class since the McReynolds decision. In Ellis v. Costco, a group of female employees claimed Costco’s promotions procedures had a discriminatory impact on women. Costco’s policy was to promote from within, and to have regional and corporate officers involved closely in the selection process for General and Assistant General Manager positions. The court determined class certification was appropriate in this case because the class showed both a uniform policy and evidence of class-wide gender disparities in promotions. This case was settled as of May 2014. Costco agreed to make changes to its promotion practices as part of the settlement.

Class Actions Allow Employees to Challenge Discrimination Together

Why do these cases matter? Policies like the ones at Merrill Lynch and Costco may seem harmless, but they can have the effect of discriminating against employees based on race, gender, family status, sexuality, or other characteristics. Class actions are one way to force employers to change discriminatory policies by allowing employees to band together. By sharing the burden of fighting back against an employer’s policies, and joining forces to present evidence together, a group of employees can make a difference through class actions. If you believe your employer’s policies are discriminatory, contact the attorneys at Hawks Quindel S.C. for a free consultation at (608) 257-0040.

Contact an Attorney

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Can we communicate with you via SMS (Text) message?
Hawks Quindel is a plaintiff-side firm serving the State of Wisconsin and beyond. In order for your inquiry to be sent to the correct group of attorneys for review, please select one of our areas of practice that best categorizes your legal issue.
After receiving your initial inquiry, our attorneys may follow-up with questions relevant to the area of practice that categorize your specific legal issue.
Are you completing this form on behalf of another person?

  • Employment Flat Fee Consults
  • Short or Long-Term Disability Flat Fee Consults
  • Improper Classification of Salaried Employees
  • Applying for Social Security Benefits
  • How Social Security Evaluates Disability
  • SSDI vs. SSI
  • Short Term Disability Benefits
  • Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Sex & Gender Discrimination
  • Americans with Disabilities Act

Hawks Quindel, S.C. Logo

Get a Free Case Screening Call Us Today


Milwaukee

5150 N Port Washington Rd Ste 243,
Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
(414) 271-8650

Madison

409 E Main St,
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-0040

Chicago

111 E Wacker Drive Ste 2300,
Chicago, IL 60601
312-262-7517

Appleton

54 Park Pl #400 ,
Appleton, WI 54914
920-931-2560

Waukesha

500 Elm Grove Rd Ste 205,
Elm Grove, WI 53122
262-439-4450

Attorneys|Practice Areas|About the Firm|Blog
© 2025 Hawks Quindel, S.C. |Sitemap|Disclaimer
Hawks Quindel represents clients throughout the State of Wisconsin, including the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, Racine, Appleton, Waukesha, Eau Claire, Oshkosh, Janesville, West Allis, La Crosse, Wauwatosa, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, New Berlin, Wausau, Menomonee Falls, Brookfield, Oak Creek, and Beloit, among others statewide. Hawks Quindel also represents Illinois clients throughout the State of Illinois through its Chicago office. In addition, our attorneys represent clients nationwide in short-term disability (STD), long-term disability (LTD), and other employee benefit claims, as well as select out-of-state Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) matters.