Merrill Lynch to pay $160 million to settle racial bias lawsuit: NYT

Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:17am EDT

The company logo of the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch is displayed at its office in Hong Kong March 8, 2013. REUTERS/Bobby Yip

The company logo of the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch is displayed at its office in Hong Kong March 8, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Bobby Yip

(Reuters) - Bank of America Corp's (BAC.N) Merrill Lynch unit agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that went through two appeals at the United States Supreme Court, the New York Times reported, citing the plaintiff's lawyer.

Longtime Merrill broker George McReynolds filed the lawsuit in 2005 accusing the brokerage of steering blacks into clerical positions and diverting lucrative accounts to white brokers, resulting in lower pay and fewer career growth opportunities.

The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer, according to the New York Times.

The preliminary settlement was confirmed to the newspaper by a spokesman for Merrill Lynch and Linda Friedman, a Chicago lawyer who represents the brokers. (link.reuters.com/wes62v)

"We are working toward a very positive resolution of a lawsuit filed in 2005 and enhancing opportunities for African-American financial advisers," Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Merrill Lynch, told the paper.

Merrill Lynch and Stowell & Friedman, the law firm representing McReynolds, could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside of regular U.S. business hours.

(Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Matt Driskill)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
FRPSR wrote:
And yet the wise men of the supreme court don’t feel that this a current issue , just historical . Meanwhile our most honored solons of jurisprudence have also deemed the constitution unfit to carry on with a guardianship of diligence regarding the protection against bias being engineered by the most able , to prevent the least able to protect themselves from solutions in search of problems , AKA , Jim Crow , Poll Taxes , or just plain old racial discrimination .
As Phyllis Schlafly noted recently , it is because the Republicans lose more elections when poor folks have more time to vote that it makes sense to make it more difficult for people whose votes are disagreeable to Phyllis and her handlers . Seems a perfectly reasonable solution to those unfamiliar with being American , and those American notions of fair-play and justice .

Aug 28, 2013 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.