New York Life History of Slavery and Racism Continues With Three New Lawsuits Ketler Bosse, Jon Sugick and Eugene Mitchell (Mitchell 2017-CV-1200 (SDNY)

Case 1:17-cv-01200-GBD Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
EUGENE MITCHELL,
Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
-against-
17-CV-1200
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff Eugene Mitchell, by his attorneys McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, as and for
his Complaint against Defendant New York Life Insurance Company, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
Plaintiff brings this action for damages and equitable relief pursuant to Section 1981 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended (Section 1981), New York Executive Law Section
290 et seq., as amended (NYSHRL), and New York City Administrative Code Section 8-107
et seq., as amended (NYCHRL), to redress injuries plaintiff sustained as a result of
discrimination against him, on the basis of his race, in the terms and conditions of his
employment with Defendant New York Life Insurance Company (New York Life), as well as
retaliation by New York Life for his opposition to discriminatory workplace practices.
Plaintiff, who is Head of New York Lifes African American Market Unit, has been
discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment, in that New York Life has
subjected him to differential treatment in terms of compensation, promotion and training and
interfered with his employment because of his race. New York Life also denied plaintiff the
resources and support necessary to achieve his Units goals, notwithstanding that it allocated
such support and resources to heads of other Market Units.
1
Plaintiff complained on numerous occasions about the differential treatment of African
Americans, in particular, those in the African American Market Unit, and of the discriminatory
policies that are designed to serve and advance the careers of non-African Americans. New York
Life retaliated against plaintiff because of his complaints, in that New York Life threatened to
shut down his Unit and threatened his employment. New York Life also withdrew his application
for promotion to Vice President and told him that he would not be considered for any other
promotions or promotional opportunities in the future and that he should leave the company.
After plaintiff further complained about New York Lifes withdrawal of his application for
promotion and suggested that it was based upon his race, New York Life placed him on
probation and issued an Individual Development Plan. Plaintiff was then warned that if any agent
in the African American Market Unit complained about disparate treatment, he would be
terminated.
New York Lifes denial of resources and refusal to consider plaintiff for any executive
position is part of a pattern of discrimination against African Americans in management at the
company.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343(3-4) and the
principles of ancillary jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment is conferred by 28 U.S.C. 2201,
2202.
3. Venue properly lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and
(c), in that the Defendant New York Life maintains an office within this judicial district, and a
2
substantial part of the events constituting the discrimination have taken place within this judicial
district.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Eugene Mitchell, who is African American, is a Corporate Vice
President in New York Lifes Cultural Markets Division and the Head of the African American
Market Unit. As Head of the African American Market Unit, plaintiff developed and
implemented the $50 Billion Empowerment Plan, the purpose of which is to improve financial
opportunity in the African American community and increase the production and retention of
African American agents at New York Life and their promotion into management.
5. Defendant New York Life is a mutual company engaged in the sale of insurance
and other financial products. Defendant has offices throughout the United States, and
internationally, with its headquarters at 51 Madison Avenue in New York City. Defendant is
engaged in an industry affecting commerce.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Background of Plaintiffs Employment with, and Racial Disparities within, New York Life
6. Plaintiff began his employment with New York Life in 2001.
7. At the time he was hired, plaintiff was an MBA Associate and part of New York
Lifes MBA Leadership Development Program, the purpose of which was to develop
participants into senior leadership positions.
8. In plaintiffs class of nine Management Associates, only three Associates,
including plaintiff, were African American. Of the three African American Associates in
plaintiffs class, and of the 12 African American Associates hired into the program, plaintiff is
the only one still employed by New York Life today.
3
9. In 2001, there were approximately 2,000 minority agents who worked for New
York Life, and of them 1,130 agents were Asian, 406 agents were Hispanic, and 560 agents were
African American.
10. New York Lifes agents were located in field offices throughout the country,
known as General Offices. At the time plaintiff was hired, there were approximately 125 General
Offices. Of the 125 General Offices, there was only one office headed by an African American.
At the same time there were six Asians and four Hispanics who headed General Offices.
Plaintiffs Advocacy for the Development of an African American Market Unit
11. At the time plaintiff was hired, there had existed a serious problem with the
production and retention of African American agents at New York Life, and their ability to
succeed at New York Life. Throughout his career, plaintiff has advocated for resources and
funding to be dedicated to New York Lifes African American employees to ensure their success
within the company.
12. In 2002, plaintiff advocated for the creation of an African American Market Unit
within the Cultural Markets Department of New York Life. At the time, New York Life had an
established Cultural Markets Department within its Agency Division. Within the Cultural
Markets Department, New York Life had created units divided along racial lines; a Hispanic
Market Unit and an Asian Market Unit with various subdivisions. Both the Asian and Hispanic
Market Units focused on selling life insurance and other financial products in the Asian and
Hispanic markets, respectively.
13. New York Life committed substantial funding and resources to the Asian and
Hispanic market units to help Asian and Hispanic agents sell New York Life insurance and other
financial products within their respective markets. In particular, New York Life engaged in
4
substantial outreach in the Asian and Hispanic markets in the form of advertising and marketing
campaigns, and spent millions of dollars in direct support for the agents in those units, by
providing training, support staff and Field Associates.
14. Upon information and belief, New York Lifes support of these markets and their
respective agents was critical to the agents ability to sell New York Life products and their
success in reaching the goals that New York Life set for each agent.
15. New York Life did not, however, commit the same or comparable resources to the
African American agents, who in turned failed to meet their sales goals, and the retention rates
for the African American agents was lower than it was for the Hispanic and Asian agents.
16. In particular, New York Life did not provide training to the African American
agents which would enable them to sell the more sophisticated policies with greater benefits that
New York Life offers. While New York Life acknowledges that the benefit a policy provides to
a community is a key element of success, upon information and belief, New York Life also
actively discouraged African American agents from pursuing training and industry certifications
and designations which would permit them to sell the more sophisticated policies,
17. Instead, African American agents were primarily relegated to selling basic
products and policies that did not provide substantial benefit to the African American community
and resulted in higher policy lapse rates for the African American agents. The agents were then
terminated because they did not reach their production goals.
18. Upon information and belief, the retention rate for African American agents who
fail to meet production goals is significantly lower than it is for Caucasian agents or for Hispanic
or Asian agents.
5
19. In addition, upon information and belief, when African American agents were
terminated, New York Lifes practice was to distribute their book of business to Caucasian
agents and not to other African American agents.
20. Further, upon information and belief, even where African American agents did
meet production goals, the lack of training often resulted in compliance issues, and top agents at
New York Life were routinely terminated for compliance issues. When these top African
American agents were terminated, it was also New York Lifes practice to distribute their book
of business to Caucasians.
21. As a result of the foregoing disparities faced by African American agents, in
2002, plaintiff volunteered to develop a company-wide African American sales and marketing
strategy. In connection with the sales and marketing strategy, plaintiff presented a proposal to
New York Life executives for the creation of an African American Market Unit within the
Cultural Markets Department. The African American Market Unit had a target population of 40
million, which was nearly equivalent to the target Hispanic market and eight times the size of the
Asian market.
22. The goal of plaintiffs proposed African American Marketing Unit was to
increase sales to the African American community and to offer a wider range of policies that
offered greater benefit to the African American community, and to improve recruiting,
productivity and retention for African American agents and to improve their promotion into
management at New York Life.
23. New York Life rejected plaintiffs proposal for the creation of an African
American Marketing Unit.
6
24. Thereafter, in 2002, New York Life was sued by the families of former slaves for
reparations for having issued life insurance policies to slaveholders on the lives of their slaves
(hereinafter, the Reparations Lawsuit), later consolidated with similar actions and captioned In
re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 02-cv-7764 (N.D. Ill.).
25. In response to the negative publicity surrounding the Reparations Lawsuit, upon
information and belief, New York Life agreed to create an African American Market Unit to
improve its image in the African American community and appointed plaintiff head of the Unit.
Notwithstanding its creation, the African American Market Unit was only created as a token unit
and New York Life only committed minimal resources and support to the Unit and the African
American agents in comparison to the Asian and Hispanic Market Units.
26. New York Life has interfered with plaintiffs performance as head of the African
American Market Unit, because of his race, in that New York Life has refused to commit the
same or similar resources and support to the African American Market Unit as it did for both the
Hispanic Market and the Asian Market Units, and the African American Market Unit was vastly
underfunded, resulting in its inability to, inter alia, hire staff, provide training, and promote sales
through advertising and marketing.
27. From the time of the creation of the African American Market Unit, in each year,
the budget per agent in the Hispanic Market Unit has been at least five times the budget for the
African American agents and the budget per agent for the Asian Market Unit has been almost ten
times the budget for the African American agents.
28. Further, since the creation of the Asian Market, New York Life has undertaken
massive advertising campaigns targeted towards the Asian markets, such as on television and in
newspapers and magazines, which has resulted in increased sales, branding and financial
7
awareness within the Asian community. However, New York Life refused to fund any
advertising for the African American Market Unit.
29. In addition, the greater budget for the Hispanic Market, in particular, has enabled
it to hire staff to work directly with its agents and managers in the General Offices to increase
management development, recruiting, agent training, and lead generation.
30. Upon information and belief, the support given for Hispanic and Asian agents has
resulted in increased production and retention for these Hispanic and Asian agents.
31. Because of New York Lifes failure to commit its resources to the African
American Market Unit, and its allocation of only minimal funds to the African American Market
Unit, plaintiff was not able to hire any staff that he needed to perform his role as head of the
Unit. As a consequence of plaintiffs lack of staff and other resources, plaintiffs Unit was not
supported in the same manner as the Asian and Hispanic Markets Units.
32. As a result of these disparities among the market units, the same issues for
African American agents in terms of lack of support, lack of training and lower retention rates
continued unchanged.
33. The lack of support directly impacted the performance of plaintiffs Unit, and
plaintiff was routinely criticized and told that his Unit was not as good as the other Units.
However, plaintiffs Unit was not as successful as the other Units because New York Life denied
the resources and support for the Unit which it gave to the other Units.
34. New York Lifes lack of support of plaintiffs Unit also negatively impacted
plaintiffs compensation which was based, in part, upon the performance of the African
American Market Unit. In particular, plaintiffs bonus compensation was directly tied to whether
the Units agents reached certain goals in categories such as the number of life insurance policies
8
sold, the number of agents meeting their required sales goals, and the retention rate of agents
hired in the prior year.
Plaintiffs Creation of the $50 Billion Empowerment Plan
35. In 2009, New York Life created the Hispanic Expansion Market, and by 2010, the
total budget for the Hispanic Market more than doubled. At the same time, there was no increase
in budget for the African American Market Unit. In response to the lack of budget increase, in
2010, plaintiff proposed a $50 Billion Empowerment Plan (the $50B Plan or Plan) to New
York Lifes senior executives. The goal of the $50B Plan was to create financial awareness and
sophistication within the African American community and for African American agents to sell
$50 billion of insurance to the African American market over the next five years.
36. Although New York Lifes senior executives commented favorably on the $50B
Plan itself, New York Life refused to allocate any funds for the $50B Plan.
37. In 2011, plaintiff also submitted a proposal to New York Life senior management
for African American Market Expansion to further and thoroughly expand the work of the agents
in the African American Market Unit. However, New York Life refused to take action on the
African American Market Expansion proposal.
38. In 2011, plaintiff, who was committed to increasing production for the African
American agents, and sales to the African American community, implemented the $50B Plan
himself as a grassroots, agent led initiative, without any corporate support.
39. In addition to its failure to support the Plan, once plaintiff launched the Plan, New
York Life took action to interfere with and undermine plaintiffs performance and the Plans
success. Upon information and belief, New York Life actively discouraged agents from
participating in the $50B Plan, and told agents that the Plan was of no benefit.
9
Plaintiffs Complaints of New York Lifes Discrimination against African American Agents
40. Following New York Lifes attempts to undermine plaintiffs $50B Plan, plaintiff
complained to senior leadership about New York Lifes discriminatory treatment of plaintiffs
Unit and its refusal to support the African American agents with funding commensurate to the
budgets for the Hispanic and Asian Markets.
41. While New York Life has acknowledged its failure to support the African
American Market, New York Life has refused to rectify its disproportionate allocation of funding
and disparate treatment of the African American Market. Upon information and belief, New
York Lifes stated reason for the disproportionate allocation of funding and resources was rooted
in the stereotype that the agents, who are African American, are lazy and unmotivated.
42. In 2011, not only did New York Life refuse to increase plaintiffs budget to
accord his Unit with the same resources as the other units, the Head of New York Lifes Agency
Department, Mark Pfaff (Pfaff), who is Caucasian, also explicitly warned plaintiff that he
should stop his whining and complaining and asking for money.
43. Thereafter, in 2012, instead of supporting plaintiffs pro-active efforts on behalf
of the African American Market Unit, Pfaff specifically humiliated plaintiff in front of 120
senior African American agents at a meeting which was held to celebrate their decades of service
to New York Life as well as the $50B Plan, among other achievements. Pfaff told the assembled
agents that plaintiffs work was not anything special and that he could be replaced by any of the
agents in the room.
44. Also, during the meeting, the agents complained about New York Lifes lack of
funding for the African American Market Unit. Following this meeting, Pfaff threatened
10
plaintiff because of the agents complaints at the meeting. He told plaintiff that he should be
fired for what had happened, or at least reprimanded.
45. Subsequently, Pfaff froze the budget for the African American Market Unit and
denied plaintiffs request to hire more staff. Pfaff then threatened plaintiff that he must continue
to work within the current restraints or he would be removed from New York Life. At the time,
the Hispanic Market had a budget of almost $9 million and a staff of 40. In contrast, plaintiffs
budget was just over $1 million and a staff of only two. By 2015, the Hispanic Market Units
staff had increased to 60, while New York Life had only increased the staff of the African
American Market Unit to four.
46. In 2013, plaintiff was informed that New York Lifes Corporate Communications
Department had funds available for advertising. New York Life had already committed
substantial funds for advertising to the Asian Market budget and plaintiff submitted a proposal
for the allocation of funds for advertising in the African American Market. Plaintiff met with the
Vice President for the Cultural Markets Division, Jane Conti (Conti), who is Caucasian, and
sought funds for advertising for the African American Market for the $50B Plan, as well as met
with the Corporate Communications Department for the same purpose.
47. The Corporate Communications Department rejected plaintiffs proposal and told
plaintiff it was New York Lifes position that he must continue to work within the budget he
already had. He was also told that New York Life was not going to support the $50B Plan.
48. In 2014, plaintiff met with Gerald Smith (Smith), the only African American
Board Member at New York Life, who for the first time learned about the $50B Plan and was
dismayed that New York Life failed to support it. He told plaintiff that he was going to look into
the Plan.
11
49. Thereafter, in or about July, 2014, plaintiff was told by Smith that the CEO,
Theodore Mathas (Mathas), who is Caucasian, had warned him to not continue his inquiry
because if Pfaff were to find out he would shut down the entire African American Market Unit.
50. In 2014, Pfaff retired and a new Head of Agency, Mark Madgett (Madgett),
who is Caucasian, was appointed. Madgett continued the same discriminatory policies against
plaintiff and the African American Market Unit. Madgett told plaintiff that New York Life was
not prepared to fund the African American Market Unit comparable to the other units and
suggested that plaintiff should leave the company.
Plaintiffs Success with the $50B Plan
51. Notwithstanding the lack of corporate support, by 2015, the $50B Plan showed
positive results. It had reached sales of $35 billion and, also, achieved the maximum production
and recruiting goals set for the African American Market Unit and was also on track for
achieving its goal of increasing awareness in the African American community of the benefits
which insurance could provide.
52. In addition to the positive results, the $50B Plan had also generated substantial
goodwill within the African American community. Notwithstanding, New York Life continued
to deny the African American Market Unit corporate advertising or promotion.
53. New York Life further undertook efforts to sabotage the $50B Plan. New York
Life suppressed press releases and went so far as to remove the website for the $50B Plan, which
impaired the ability to enroll new business for the African American Market Unit under the Plan.
To date, the website has not been restored.
54. In addition, and notwithstanding the positive results which plaintiff had
accomplished with the $50B Plan, in August, 2015, at a meeting of African American agents,
12
one of New York Lifes Senior Vice Presidents, Salvatore Farina (Farina), who is Caucasian,
acknowledged that New York Life was aware that the African American Market Unit was
underfunded compared to the other Units, and that New York Life was not going to increase the
funding.
55. Moreover, even though the $50B Plan had positive results and notwithstanding
that New York Life had denied the African American Market Unit the resources the agents
needed to succeed, Farina told the agents that New York Life was not going to increase the
funding because the agents were not motivated, which is an outdated and outmoded racial
stereotype.
56. In 2016, Mathas met with plaintiff and complimented him for doing great work
with the $50B Plan. He also questioned plaintiff about his career plans and suggested that he
should be in a higher position at the company. Mathas also acknowledged that the folks in
Agency dont value you.
57. At the time of the meeting, Mathas stated he had not been aware that company
executives, including the Agency Department, had not supported the $50B Plan. Mathas told
plaintiff that he would look into it and that he would get back to him.
58. There was never any follow-up from Mathas and, to date, New York Life has not
supported the $50B Plan.
New York Lifes Denial of Promotion and Other Opportunities to Plaintiff
59. Throughout his fifteen years at New York Life, plaintiff has received positive
performance reviews and evaluations. Plaintiffs creation and implementation of the $50B Plan
and its success through 2015 had been praised in his annual performance reviews and
evaluations.
13
60. During his tenure as Corporate Vice President, plaintiff repeatedly asked about
promotional opportunities, but was told that the Corporate Vice President position was a dead
end and that there was nothing for him. He was also told that he had reached his salary cap, and
that he should either work in the field or leave New York Life.
61. While New York Life represented to plaintiff that there was no opportunity for
promotion above the Corporate Vice President level, New York Life had an Accelerated
Leadership Program (ALP), with the specific purpose of developing Corporate Vice Presidents
for promotion and executive officer level positions. ALP was overseen by the CEO and
Executive Management Committee and the selection of participants for the Cultural Markets
Division was made by vice president Jane Conti, who was the Head of the Cultural Markets
Division and was Caucasian. However, New York Life never informed plaintiff of this program.
62. Notwithstanding that plaintiff was told that the Cultural Markets Division was a
dead end, both Asian and Hispanic Corporate Vice Presidents in the Cultural Markets
Division had been selected for participation in this program. Further, two of the Hispanic
Corporate Vice Presidents, including the Hispanic Head of the Hispanic Market Unit, who had
been selected for the Program were promoted to executive positions.
63. After plaintiff learned about ALP from a colleague, he made repeated requests for
inclusion in the program; however, he was never selected.
64. Plaintiff was also denied inclusion in company sponsored external leadership
programs such as the Executive Leadership Council, the Conference of Urban Professionals and
Calibur, among others.
65. Additionally, plaintiff was excluded from internal corporate meetings at New
York Life.
14
66. In or about March, 2016, Conti was given additional responsibilities and her
position became vacant.
67. In or about April, 2016, New York Life advertised the Cultural Markets Vice
President position vacancy. Plaintiff was qualified for the position and, on April 25, 2016, he
applied for the position.
68. On May 6, 2016, plaintiff had an interview with a representative from Human
Resources. The meeting with Human Resources was positive and plaintiff was told he would be
advanced in the interview process.
69. Thereafter on June 13, 2016, Madgett met with plaintiff and the Chief Operating
Officer, Gerard Rocchi (Rocchi), who is Caucasian, and informed plaintiff that he decided to
withdraw plaintiffs name from consideration, and that he would not be allowed to compete for
the Cultural Markets Vice President position.
70. Madgett told plaintiff that he had not disqualified plaintiff from promotion for
performance reasons; rather, he had disqualified plaintiff based on a perceived behavioral issue
and a review of a Human Resources file concerning plaintiff.
71. Madgett further told plaintiff that he had recommended that plaintiff not be
promoted to any executive position within the company.
72. Following this meeting, plaintiff complained to Conti about his removal from
consideration for the vacancy, and requested access to the Human Resources file which Madgett
stated he had reviewed and upon which Madgett decided to withdraw plaintiffs candidacy.
Plaintiff also requested that the Office of Diversity furnish him with a list of all African
American Vice Presidents at New York Life, because he believed that he was being denied the
promotional opportunity on account of his race.
15
73. On June 28, 2016, Conti admitted that there was no such file on plaintiff, and
that Madgett therefore had not reviewed any such file. Plaintiff also did not receive the list of
African American Vice Presidents at New York Life he had requested.
74. On July 26, 2016, approximately one month after plaintiff requested the list of
African American Vice Presidents at New York Life, Conti and Madgett, along with Rocchi,
who is Caucasian, met with plaintiff and, for the first time, advised plaintiff that there was a
problem with his behavior. Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary memorandum with specific
reference to plaintiffs conduct and judgment.
75. Conti placed plaintiff on probation and issued an Individual Development Plan
which required that he meet with a coach. Conti further advised plaintiff that he was required to
meet with her at regularly scheduled meetings to discuss ongoing initiatives. Rocchi also warned
plaintiff that if there were any more complaints about lack of support to the African American
Market Unit, he would be terminated.
76. During the meeting, Madgett stated plaintiffs application for promotion was
withdrawn because he perceived that plaintiff was responsible for a lawsuit brought against New
York Life approximately three years prior, notwithstanding that the lawsuit had not previously
been raised before. New York Life settled that lawsuit well over a year prior to plaintiffs
consideration for promotion and plaintiff continued to receive positive performance reviews and
evaluations since the lawsuit.
77. The reasons New York Life provided for plaintiffs withdrawal from
consideration for the Vice President of Cultural Markets position were pretextual. New York
Lifes failure to consider plaintiff for Vice President was on account of his race and because of
his persistent complaints about New York Lifes discrimination against African American agents
16
by its failure to fund the African American Market Unit and to otherwise support the African
American agents.
78. The disciplinary memorandum and Individual Development Plan were issued to
cover New York Lifes discrimination and was in response to plaintiffs complaint of New York
Lifes discriminating against him by removing him from consideration for the open Vice
President position and denying him promotion to any executive position.
79. In or about September, 2016, New York Life promoted the Head of the Hispanic
Market, Hector Vilchis (Vilchis), who is Hispanic, to the Cultural Markets Vice President
position that plaintiff had applied for and had been denied. Vilchis had only been Head of the
Hispanic Market for four years (since 2012), whereas plaintiff had been Head of the African
American Market for over 13 years (since 2003).
80. On or about October 18, 2016, plaintiff met with Rocchi, who told him that he
was known as a complainer and that was why his career path was stuck. He also told
plaintiff, You need to decide whether you want to be here and work with what you have,
because continuing doing what you are doing is not going to end well for you.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Discrimination Under Section 1981)
81. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs
1 through 80 as if set forth in full herein.
82. Plaintiff, who is African American, is a member of a protected class who has been
subjected to discrimination that has interfered with his protected rights under Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, to enjoy all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the
contractual relationship.
17
83. When plaintiff accepted employment with New York Life, he entered into a
contract with New York Life, whereby he was entitled to the enjoyment of all the same benefits,
privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship as his non-African American
counterparts.
84. When New York Life denied Plaintiff support and opportunities for career
advancement, promotion, and equal earning opportunities, it interfered with the contract with
plaintiff and otherwise denied plaintiff the benefits and privileges of the contract based upon his
race.
85. New York Lifes denial of the benefits and privileges of the contract with plaintiff
was intentional, malicious and otherwise in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights under Section
1981.
86. As a result of New York Lifes interference with plaintiffs contract and denial to
plaintiff of the benefits and privileges of his contract, plaintiff has sustained injury to his career
and has suffered economic and emotional injury.
87. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated Section 1981 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, and plaintiff is entitled to the following:
(a) an injunction ordering New York Life to cease their discriminatory
practices as described herein;
(b) economic damages in the amount of not less than Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000);
(c) compensatory damages in the amount of not less than Three Million
Dollars ($3,000,000);
18
(d) punitive damages in the amount of not less than Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000); and
(e) attorneys and expert fees in an amount not presently capable of
ascertainment.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation Under Section 1981)
88. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 80 and 82 through 87 as if set forth in full herein.
89. Plaintiff complained about the different terms and conditions which he and
other African American employees were subjected to by New York Life based on their race.
90. As a result of plaintiffs complaints, New York Life subjected plaintiff to
retaliation, in that plaintiff was, inter alia, denied support and opportunities for career
advancement and promotion, and equal earning opportunities.
91. When New York Life retaliated against plaintiff for opposing the different
terms and conditions which he and other African American employees had been subjected to
by New York Life based on their race, New York Life violated plaintiffs contractual rights
to engage in protected activity.
92. New York Lifes retaliation against plaintiff violates plaintiffs federally
protected rights under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, in that plaintiff was,
inter alia, denied support and opportunities for career advancement, promotion, and equal
earning opportunities as retaliation for having lawfully complained of discrimination.
93. New York Lifes conduct was intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard
of plaintiffs protected rights under the federal civil rights laws.
19
94. As a result of New York Lifes retaliation against plaintiff, plaintiff has
sustained injury to his career and suffered stress and economic damages and other injury.
95. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and plaintiff is entitled to the following:
($3,000,000);
Dollars ($3,000,000);
($3,000,000); and
ascertainment.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Discrimination Under the New York State Human Rights Law)
1 through 80, 82 through 87 and 89 through 95 as if set forth more fully herein.
97. New York Lifes refusal to support plaintiff as head of the African American
Market Unit was based on race and contrary to New York Lifes treatment of non-African
American heads of other Market Units at New York Life.
98. New York Lifes denial of plaintiffs requests for career advancement
opportunities was based on race and contrary to New York Lifes treatment of non-African
American employees.
20
99. New York Lifes denial of plaintiffs request for promotion was based on race and
contrary to New York Lifes treatment of non-African American employees.
100. New York Lifes conduct was in violation of plaintiffs protected rights under
New York State Human Rights laws.
101. As a result of New York Lifes discrimination against plaintiff, plaintiff has
sustained injury to his career and suffered stress and economic damages and other injury.
102. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated the New York State
Human Rights laws and plaintiff is entitled to the following:
($3,000,000); and
Dollars ($3,000,000).
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation Under the New York State Human Rights Law)
1 through 80, 82 through 87, 89 through 95 and 97 through 102 as if set forth
more fully herein.
104. Plaintiff complained about the discriminatory treatment to which he and other
African Americans were subjected to by New York Life.
advancement, and promotion.
21
106. New York Lifes retaliation against plaintiff violates plaintiffs protected rights
under New York State Human Rights laws.
107. As a result of New York Lifes retaliation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained
injury to his career and suffered stress and economic damages and other injury.
108. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated New York State Human
Rights laws and plaintiff is entitled to the following relief:
($3,000,000); and
Dollars ($3,000,000).
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Discrimination Under the New York City Human Rights Law)
1 through 80, 82 through 87, 89 through 95, 97 through 102 and 104
through 108 as if set forth more fully herein.
110. New York Lifes refusal to support plaintiff as head of the African American
Market Unit was based on race and contrary to New York Lifes treatment of non-African
American heads of other Market Units at New York Life.
111. New York Lifes denial of plaintiffs requests for career advancement
opportunities and promotion were based on plaintiffs race, and was contrary to New York Lifes
treatment of non-African American employees.
22
112. New York Lifes conduct was in violation of plaintiffs protected rights under
New York City Human Rights laws.
113. New York Lifes conduct was intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of
plaintiffs protected rights under New York City Human Rights laws.
115. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated New York City Human
($3,000,000);
Dollars ($3,000,000);
($3,000,000); and
ascertainment.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation Under the New York City Human Rights Law)
1 through 80, 82 through 87, 89 through 95, 97 through 102, 104 through
108 and 110 through 115 as if set forth more fully herein.
23
117. Plaintiff complained about the discriminatory treatment to which he and other
African Americans were subjected to by New York Life.
advancement, and promotion.
119. New York Lifes retaliation against plaintiff violates plaintiffs protected rights
under New York City Human Rights laws.
121. By reason of the foregoing, New York Life has violated New York City Human
($3,000,000);
Dollars ($3,000,000);
($3,000,000); and
ascertainment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eugene Mitchell requests that this Court issue a judgment
granting the following relief to plaintiff:
24
1. Issuing a declaratory judgment as follows:
(a) Defendant New York Life has violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1981,
et seq.;
(b) Defendant New York Life has violated the provisions of the New York
Executive Law 296, et seq.; and
(c) Defendant New York Life has violated the provisions of the New York
City Administrative Code Section 8-107, et seq.
2. Issuing an injunction ordering New York Life to cease its discriminatory actions
and practices with regard to its denial of support and resources to plaintiffs Unit, and the denial
of opportunities for career advancement and consideration for promotions on the basis of race,
and to advance plaintiff as he would have been advanced in the absence of discrimination, and to
cease acts of retaliation against plaintiff.
3. Awarding plaintiff damages as follows:
ON THE FIRST COUNT
(a) economic damages in the amount of not less than Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000);
(b) compensatory damages in the amount of not less than Three Million
Dollars ($3,000,000);
(c) punitive damages in the amount of not less than Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000); and
(d) attorneys and expert fees in an amount not presently capable of
ascertainment.
25
ON THE SECOND COUNT
($3,000,000);
Dollars ($3,000,000);
(c) punitive damages in the amount of not less than Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000); and
(d) attorneys and expert fees in an amount not presently capable of
ascertainment.
ON THE THIRD COUNT
($3,000,000); and
Dollars ($3,000,000).
ON THE FOURTH COUNT
($3,000,000); and
Dollars ($3,000,000).
ON THE FIFTH COUNT
($3,000,000);
26

New York Life History of Slavery and Racism Continues With Three New Lawsuits Ketler Bosse, Jon Sugick and Eugene Mitchell (Mitchell 2017-CV-1200 (SDNY)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New York Life History of Slavery and Racism Continues With Three New Lawsuits Ketler Bosse, Jon Sugick and Eugene Mitchell (Mitchell 2017-CV-1200 (SDNY)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:17-cv-01200-GBD Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

et seq., as amended (NYCHRL), to redress injuries plaintiff sustained as a result of

such support and resources to heads of other Market Units.

Plaintiff complained on numerous occasions about the differential treatment of African

position is part of a pattern of discrimination against African Americans in management at the

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

principles of ancillary jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment is conferred by 28 U.S.C. 2201,

4. Plaintiff Eugene Mitchell, who is African American, is a Corporate Vice

engaged in an industry affecting commerce.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6. Plaintiff began his employment with New York Life in 2001.

participants into senior leadership positions.

8. In plaintiffs class of nine Management Associates, only three Associates,

the only one still employed by New York Life today.

Plaintiffs Advocacy for the Development of an African American Market Unit

within the company.

Hispanic markets, respectively.

providing training, support staff and Field Associates.

terminated because they did not reach their production goals.

agents and not to other African American agents.

21. As a result of the foregoing disparities faced by African American agents, in

management at New York Life.

American Marketing Unit.

re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 02-cv-7764 (N.D. Ill.).

American agents in comparison to the Asian and Hispanic Market Units.

through advertising and marketing.

times the budget for the African American agents.

advertising for the African American Market Unit.

management development, recruiting, agent training, and lead generation.

hired in the prior year.

Plaintiffs Creation of the $50 Billion Empowerment Plan

African American Market Expansion proposal.

himself as a grassroots, agent led initiative, without any corporate support.

budgets for the Hispanic and Asian Markets.

43. Thereafter, in 2012, instead of supporting plaintiffs pro-active efforts on behalf

agents in the room.

fired for what had happened, or at least reprimanded.

American Market Unit to four.

with the Corporate Communications Department for the same purpose.

suggested that plaintiff should leave the company.

Plaintiffs Success with the $50B Plan

which insurance could provide.

to deny the African American Market Unit corporate advertising or promotion.

To date, the website has not been restored.

Agency dont value you.

supported the $50B Plan.

New York Lifes Denial of Promotion and Other Opportunities to Plaintiff

been selected for the Program were promoted to executive positions.

inclusion in the program; however, he was never selected.

Calibur, among others.

position became vacant.

applied for the position.

advanced in the interview process.

the Cultural Markets Vice President position.

and a review of a Human Resources file concerning plaintiff.

promoted to any executive position within the company.

promotional opportunity on account of his race.

African American Vice Presidents at New York Life he had requested.

reference to plaintiffs conduct and judgment.

Market Unit, he would be terminated.

evaluations since the lawsuit.

President position and denying him promotion to any executive position.