Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03903/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03903-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

722007.2 - 1 - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C- 06-3903 TEH 

Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) 

Heather H. Wong (State Bar No. 238546) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

 [Additional Counsel listed on Signature Page] 

Mark S. Dichter, admitted Pro Hac Vice 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215.963.5000 

Fax: 215.963.5001 

Attorneys for Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. 

Incorporated, f/k/a Morgan Stanley DW Inc. 

 [Additional Counsel listed on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAISY JAFFE, DENISE WILLIAMS, and 

MARGARET BENAY CURTIS-BAUER, 

on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. 

INCORPORATED, f/k/a MORGAN 

STANLEY DW INC. 

Defendant. 

Case No. C-06-3903 TEH 

CLASS ACTION

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING FILING OF 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT______

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

722007.2 - 2 - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C- 06-3903 TEH 

 WHEREAS, on October 12, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended complaint 

adding Plaintiff Denise Williams, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race 

discrimination and under the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101, et seq., for 

race and gender discrimination; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Denise Williams has received a notice of right to sue from 

the EEOC for her claims of classwide race and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs seek to amend the First Amended Complaint to add Ms. 

Williams’ Title VII claims, as well as her classwide claims under § 1981 and the M.C.L.A. §§ 

37.2101, et seq., and to add the claims of a new Plaintiff, Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have advised Defendant of their request to amend the First 

Amended Complaint in the form attached as Exhibit 1 and Defendant has consented thereto, 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their 

respective counsel of record, that Plaintiffs may file the Second Amended Complaint attached as 

Exhibit 1 hereto. 

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: August 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: /s/ Kelly M. Dermody

Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) 

Heather H. Wong (State Bar No. 238546) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

722007.2 - 3 - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C- 06-3903 TEH 

 Adam T. Klein (Pro Hac Vice) 

Justin M. Swartz (Pro Hac Vice)

Piper Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor 

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 

 James M. Finberg (State Bar No. 114850) 

ALTSHULER BERZON 

177 Post Street, Ste. 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

DATED: August 2, 2007 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By: ______ /s/ Mark S. Dichter_____________ 

 Mark S. Dichter 

Mark S. Dichter, admitted Pro Hac Vice 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215.963.5000 

Fax: 215.963.5001 

 L. Julius M. Turman (State Bar No. 226126) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Direct: (415) 442-1361 

Fax: (415) 442-1001 

Attorneys for Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. 

Incorporated, f/k/a Morgan Stanley DW Inc. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 3 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

722007.2 - 4 - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C- 06-3903 TEH 

ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 4 of 46

August 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 46
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 5 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) 

Heather H. Wong (State Bar No. 238546) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

email: kdermody@lchb.com 

email: hwong@lchb.com 

Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 

Nashville, TN 37219-2423 

Telephone: (615) 313-9000 

Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 

email: ealexander@lchb.com 

[Additional counsel listed on signature page] 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION 

DAISY JAFFE, DENISE WILLIAMS, and 

MARGARET BENAY CURTIS-BAUER, 

on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. 

INCORPORATED, f/k/a MORGAN 

STANLEY DW INC. 

Defendant. 

Case No. C-06-3903 TEH 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND 

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND 

DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 

VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 

THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT 

AND HOUSING ACT, CAL. GOV’T CODE 

§§ 12940, et seq. and the ELLIOT-LARSEN 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101 

et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 6 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 1 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Daisy Jaffe, Denise Williams, and Margaret 

Benay Curtis-Bauer (“Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege, 

upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to other matters, as 

follows: 

 NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. f/k/a Morgan Stanley DW 

Inc. (hereinafter “MS ” or “the Company”) contains Global Wealth Management Group (MSGWMG), which manages MS’s retail financial services firm. MS’s retail financial services firm 

discriminates against African American and Latino (hereinafter, collectively “minority”) and 

female Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees on the basis of gender, race 

and/or color with respect to business opportunities, compensation, and other terms and conditions 

of employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et 

seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 

12940 et seq., and the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101 et seq.

2. The violations are systemic, constituting a pattern and practice that 

pervades the corporate culture of MS. They are not isolated or exceptional incidents, but rather 

the regular and predictable result of Defendant’s policies and practices. Put simply, MS’s 

policies and practices with regard to, among other things, the distribution of the business 

opportunities, investment accounts, and sales support under its control have the effect, and have 

been undertaken with the purpose, of denying equal opportunities for compensation to qualified 

female and minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees. 

3. MS generally pays its Financial Advisors (also called “FAs” or “brokers”) 

on a commission basis—a percentage of the revenue generated by the investment accounts 

assigned to the FA. 

4. FAs acquire investment accounts through “leads” and “referrals” (e.g., 

when a Financial Advisor is told of a potential client, the FA contacts the potential client, and the 

FA enrolls the potential client as a MS customer); by transfers from one Financial Advisor to 

another (e.g., when another FA moves to another brokerage firm, retires or leaves the business); 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 7 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 7 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 2 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

through partnerships with other Financial Advisors, and through “walk-ins” and “call-ins” (e.g., 

when a potential client calls or walks into the branch and inquires about opening an account). 

5. MS has implemented company-wide policies and practices for the 

distribution of accounts, leads, referrals, partnership opportunities, walk-ins, call-ins, and other 

business opportunities that delegate substantial discretion to MS’s virtually all-white-male Branch 

Managers and allow Branch Managers to rely on inappropriate criteria causing an unlawful 

adverse impact on women and minorities. MS Branch Managers have extraordinary discretion to 

distribute accounts and business opportunities as they choose, allowing their gender and race 

stereotypes and the company-wide culture of gender and race discrimination to influence their 

decisions. As a result, it has been MS’s practice for years to distribute accounts and other 

business opportunities to white male Financial Advisors in numbers disproportionate to those 

distributed to similarly-situated female and minority Financial Advisors. 

6. Because Financial Advisors obtain so many accounts through this process, 

rather than on the FAs’ own initiative, the distribution of accounts and the allocation of business 

opportunities are substantial factors affecting the compensation of MS Financial Advisors. 

7. These discriminatory policies and practices intentionally and systematically 

disadvantage female and minority Financial Advisors at MS and prevent them from fairly 

competing for business opportunities and higher compensation. 

8. As troubling as these discriminatory policies and practices are, more 

disturbing still is the cavalier way in which MS treats the subject of gender and race 

discrimination against its female and minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial 

Advisor Trainees. For example, while MS says, “We focus recruiting efforts on women and 

provide career development programs including internal women’s conferences led by senior 

women executives,” these statements of inclusion are illusory in light of MS's exclusionary 

practices. 

9. Accordingly, this class action is brought by female and minority Financial 

Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees on behalf of themselves individually and all 

similarly-situated female and minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 8 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 8 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 3 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Trainees in the United States against whom MS has discriminated on the basis of gender, race 

and/or color. This action seeks to end MS’s discriminatory policies and/or practices and to make 

the Plaintiff class whole by requesting the following remedies: injunctive relief to remedy 

systemic gender, race, and/or color discrimination at MS; an award of back pay and front pay; 

and compensatory and punitive damages. 

 JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Members 

of the Plaintiff class reside in California and throughout the United States. Defendant MS is a 

Delaware corporation, headquartered in New York, and licensed to do business in California. It 

has branch offices throughout California and this District. Many of the acts complained of 

occurred in this State and this District and gave rise to the claims alleged. 

12. Assignment to the San Francisco/Oakland Division of this Court is proper 

because Plaintiffs Daisy Jaffe and Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer reside within this Division and 

many of the acts complained of took place in this Division. 

 PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe is a female resident of Hillsboro, California. She was 

employed as a Financial Advisor in the San Mateo, California office of MS from on or about 

August 1982 until August 11, 2005. During the course of her employment as a Financial Advisor 

at MS, MS denied Ms. Jaffe business opportunities on the basis of her gender and age that 

directly impacted her compensation. MS wrongfully terminated Ms. Jaffe because she is female 

and over the age of 40. 

14. Plaintiff Denise Williams is an African-American female who resides in 

Northville, Michigan. She is currently employed as a Financial Advisor in the Detroit, Michigan 

office of MS. Her employment as a Financial Advisor at MS in Detroit began in March 2004. 

During the course of her employment, MS has denied Ms. Williams business opportunities on the 

basis of her gender, race, and color that directly impacted her compensation. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 9 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 9 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 4 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

15. Plaintiff Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer is an African-American female who 

resides in Emeryville, California. She was employed in the San Francisco, California office of 

MS from approximately October or November 1989 until November 2002. She started at MS as 

a Financial Advisor trainee, and became a registered Financial Advisor in or around 1990. 

During the course of her employment, MS has denied Ms. Curtis-Bauer business opportunities on 

the basis of her race and color that directly impacted her compensation. MS wrongfully 

terminated Ms. Curtis-Bauer because she is African-American.

16. MS was formerly known as Morgan Stanley D.W., a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. 

17. Morgan Stanley is a global financial firm that provides brokerage and 

investment banking management services to corporations, governments and individuals around 

the world. It maintains leading market positions in each of its business segments – Institutional 

Securities, Retail Brokerage, Asset Management and Discover (Credit Services). Morgan Stanley 

employs approximately 58,333 employees worldwide. It is a Fortune 500 company doing 

business in 32 countries and is one of the largest financial institutions in the United States. It 

recently reported annual revenues of almost $52.5 billion, a net income of $7.4 billion and assets 

of $898.5 billion. Morgan Stanley reported a market value of over $63 billion in its November 

2006 SEC 10-K filing. 

18. MS-GWMG is the retail broker-dealer subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. MS 

provides comprehensive financial services to clients through a network of approximately 8,000 

Financial Advisors with over 500 global locations, including over 450 U.S. retail locations. As of 

June 20, 2007, MS had $728 billion in client assets. 

 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class of all female Financial Advisors and 

Registered Financial Advisor Trainees employed by MS in the United States at any time from 

August 5, 2003 to the present (the “Gender Class”). Plaintiff Williams brings this Class Action 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class of all African American 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 10 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 10 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 5 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees employed by MS in the United 

States at any time from October 12, 2002 to the present (the “African American Class”), and 

Plaintiff Curtis Bauer brings this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) 

on behalf of a Class of all minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees 

employed by MS in the United States at any time from October 12, 2002 to the present (the 

“Minority Class”). Plaintiff Jaffe also brings this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 

(b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a Subclass of all female Financial Advisors and Registered 

Financial Advisor Trainees employed by MS in California at any time from November 1, 2004 to 

the present (the “California Gender Subclass”). Plaintiff Williams brings this action pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of Subclasses of female and African American 

Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees employed by MS in Michigan at 

any time from October 12, 2003 to the present (the “Michigan Gender Subclass” and the 

“Michigan Race Subclass”). Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of the Classes 

and Subclasses based on discovery or legal developments. 

20. Plaintiffs are members of the Classes and/or Subclasses they seek to 

represent. 

21. The members of the Classes and Subclasses identified herein are so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of the filing of this Complaint, MS has 

approximately 8,000 Financial Advisors. Although the precise number of female and minority 

Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees is currently unknown, it is far 

greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder. 

22. There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes and Subclasses, 

and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common 

questions include, among others: (1) whether MS’s policies or practices discriminate against 

female and minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees; (2) whether 

MS’s policies or practices violate Title VII, Section 1981, the California Fair Employment and 

Housing Act and/or Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act; and (3) whether equitable 

remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory, and punitive damages for the Class are warranted. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 11 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 11 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 6 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

23. The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the 

Classes and Subclasses. Ms. Jaffe and Ms. Williams are female current or former Financial 

Advisors of MS who allege gender discrimination. In addition, Ms. Williams and Ms. CurtisBauer are African American current or former Financial Advisors or Financial Advisor Trainees 

who allege race and color discrimination. 

24. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the members of the Classes and Subclasses. There are no conflicts 

between Ms. Jaffe and Ms. Williams and the Gender Class, and there are no conflicts between 

Ms. Williams and Ms. Curtis-Bauer and the African American and Minority Classes. Because 

MS utilizes the same discriminatory practices against both African Americans and Latinos, Ms. 

Curtis-Bauer is an adequate representative of the Minority Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and 

the intersection thereof. 

25. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 

because MS has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and 

Subclasses, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the 

Classes and Subclasses. The Class and Subclass members are entitled to injunctive relief to end 

MS’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices. 

26. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 

because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual members of the Classes and Subclasses, and because a class action is superior to other 

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The Class members 

have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of MS’s common, uniform, and 

discriminatory policies and practices. MS has computerized account, payroll, and personnel data 

that will make calculation of damages for specific Class and Subclass members relatively simple. 

The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based on the conduct of the Defendant, 

making these issues common to the Classes and Subclasses. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 12 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 12 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 7 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

 GENERAL POLICIES OR PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION

27. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by the 

Representative Plaintiffs are part of a general policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of 

gender, race, and color in employment that has existed at MS throughout the relevant time period. 

These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual decisions. On the 

contrary, these incidents are representative of MS’s systematic discrimination against female and 

minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees in favor of white males. 

28. MS systematically recruits, hires, promotes, and retains white males to 

Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees positions in all branches 

throughout the United States. MS’s uniform and company-wide practices exclude women and 

minorities from Financial Advisors and Financial Advisor Trainees positions.

29. Because virtually all indicia of success, advancement, and achievement at 

MS are based on the total dollar amount of the assets a Financial Advisor manages or on the 

amount or revenue he or she has produced, the ability to acquire new and lucrative accounts is 

essential to a Financial Advisor’s success in the business. Titles at MS are also based on gross 

production, total assets, or both. For example, officer titles, such as “First Vice President” are 

awarded when a Financial Advisor reaches at least $500,000 in gross production in the course of 

a year. First 

30. MS’s nationwide account distribution policies and practices (as well as its 

policies and practices for distributing other business opportunities) discriminate against women 

and minorities. They permit excessive subjectivity by Branch Office Managers and Sales 

Managers in account assignment and the allocation of business opportunities. This is a uniform 

practice across MS offices. Thus, Branch Office Managers and Sales Managers distribute 

accounts, referrals, leads, call-ins, walk-ins, and other business opportunities to the FAs based on 

the Branch Office Managers’ and Sales Managers’ biased personal preferences. 

31. By entrusting Branch Office Managers and Sales Managers, virtually all of 

whom are white men, with undue discretion in these matters, MS maintains a system whereby the 

Branch Office Managers and Sales Managers apply their own personal preferences and biases in 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 13 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 13 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 8 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

making distribution decisions in a way that systematically disadvantages women and minorities, 

and limits their compensation. 

32. MS has implemented policies or practices that have denied or restricted the 

availability of business opportunities, compensation, and other favorable employment conditions 

to qualified female and minority Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees. 

Such discriminatory policies or practices include, without limitation: 

a. Systematically discriminating against women and minorities in 

allocating accounts and business opportunities that impact their opportunities for increased 

compensation, including, but not limited to, leads, call-ins, walk-ins, accounts from departing or 

retiring brokers’ books, sales support, office allocation, partnership formation and partnership 

splits, and other sources of business and production; 

b. Establishing and maintaining arbitrary and subjective policies or 

systems regarding business allocation and account distribution that have had the effect of denying 

compensation to qualified women and minorities; 

c. Relying upon unweighted, subjective, gender-based, race-based, 

color-based, and/or arbitrary criteria utilized by a nearly all-white-male managerial workforce in 

making business allocation decisions that directly impact FAs’ compensation; 

d. Denying women and minorities opportunities to increase their 

commissions and other earnings; 

e. Maintaining a discriminatory, gender-biased, race-biased, and 

color-biased, corporate culture; 

f. Establishing and maintaining discriminatory recruitment, hiring, 

and assignment policies or systems that have had the effect of denying Financial Advisor and 

Registered Financial Advisor Trainee positions to qualified women and minorities; and 

g. Making employment decisions based on gender or race stereotypes. 

33. Further compounding each of these discriminatory policies or practices, 

MS has failed to monitor its policies and practices to determine how these policies and practices 

systematically disadvantage women and minorities. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 14 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 14 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 9 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF JAFFE

34. Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe worked as a Financial Advisor from approximately 

August 1982 to August 11, 2005 in the San Mateo, California office of MS. During the course of 

her employment, MS denied her compensation, business opportunities, titles and other conditions 

of employment that it made available to similarly-situated male Financial Advisors. 

35. In what MS called a “reduction in force,” it terminated Ms. Jaffe’s 

employment on August 11, 2005. Morgan Stanley unlawfully terminated Ms. Jaffe because she is 

a female and is over 40. 

36. Since the beginning of her employment with MS, MS has denied Ms. Jaffe 

compensation that it made available to similarly-situated male Financial Advisors. MS routinely 

distributed business opportunities, including accounts from departing and retiring brokers, 

referrals, leads, call-ins and walk-ins, and potential clients, to male Financial Advisors, rather 

than to female Financial Advisors. As a result of the inequitable and discriminatory distribution of 

accounts and account prospects, female Financial Advisors have diminished income potential and 

diminished actual income as compared to similarly-situated male employees. MS has also 

favored younger Financial Advisors in account distribution and the allocation of business 

opportunities. For example, in 2005, MS distributed almost all the accounts of a retiring 

Financial Advisor to male Financial Advisors who were younger than Ms. Jaffe and who had no 

more qualifications than she. Similarly, MS distributed almost all the accounts of two other 

departing Financial Advisors to younger, male Financial Advisors who were no more qualified 

than Ms. Jaffe. 

37. During the course of her employment, MS also did not allocate any 

significant walk-in or call-in business to Ms. Jaffe, while it did allocate such business to 

similarly-situated younger male Financial Advisors. MS denied Ms. Jaffe these opportunities due 

to her gender and age. 

38. MS also discriminated against Ms. Jaffe as an individual based on gender 

by denying her desirable office assignments. At the same time, it provided desirable office 

assignments to similarly-situated male Financial Advisors. MS did not permit Ms. Jaffe to have a 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 15 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 15 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 10 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

desirable upstairs office, where the offices of similarly-situated male broker were located. 

Similarly, MS denied Ms. Jaffe’s request to relocate to the Palo Alto office after the San Mateo 

office was evacuated in October 2004 due to a flood. MS permitted similarly-situated male 

Financial Advisors to relocate while it forced Ms. Jaffe to work from home. By discriminating 

against her with respect to these terms and conditions of her employment, MS diminished the 

amount of Ms. Jaffe’s compensation. 

39. By denying compensation to Ms. Jaffe that it made available to similarlysituated male Financial Advisors, MS has also denied her the ability to reach earnings tiers with 

prestigious titles and greater income opportunities, which MS awarded based on a Financial 

Advisor’s level of compensation. 

40. MS terminated Ms. Jaffe’s employment due to the fact that she is female 

and over the age of 40. At the time she was terminated, she held the title of First Vice President. 

This title was given to her because her annual production was at least $500,000. At the time MS 

terminated Ms. Jaffe, similarly-situated men (including younger men) with fewer qualifications 

than she were not terminated. MS’s stated reason for her termination at the time was that her 

production levels were not adequate. Ms. Jaffe’s production levels were diminished, however, 

only because MS discriminated against her with respect to account distribution and business 

opportunities, and through its refusal to permit her to relocate to a working office in 2004. 

41. On or about November 1, 2005, Ms. Jaffe filed a charge of discrimination 

with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On April 12, 2006, she received a Notice of 

Right to Sue from the DFEH. On June 22, 2006, she received a Notice of Right to Sue from the 

EEOC. Her charge and Notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC and DFEH are attached to this 

Complaint as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference. 

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF DENISE WILLIAMS

42. Plaintiff Denise Williams has worked as a Financial Advisor since March 

2004 in the Detroit, Michigan office of MS. Ms. Williams is a current employee in that office. 

During the course of her employment, MS denied her compensation, business opportunities, 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 16 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 16 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 11 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

corporate-officer titles and other conditions of employment that it made available to similarlysituated white male Financial Advisors. 

43. Since the beginning of her employment with MS, MS has denied Ms. 

Williams compensation that it made available to similarly-situated white male Financial 

Advisors. MS routinely distributed business opportunities, including accounts from departing 

and retiring brokers, referrals, leads, call-ins and walk-ins, and potential clients, to white male 

Financial Advisors, rather than to Ms. Williams. As a result of the inequitable and 

discriminatory distribution of accounts and account prospects, female and African American 

Financial Advisors have diminished income potential and diminished actual income as compared 

to similarly-situated white male employees. As a result of the inequitable and discriminatory 

distribution of accounts and account prospects, Ms. Williams had diminished income potential 

and diminished actual income as compared to similarly-situated white male employees. 

44. On or about November 2005, MS transferred a group of accounts from a 

senior broker to a white male Financial Advisor with fewer qualifications than Ms. Williams. MS 

did not provide Ms. Williams with similar account distributions. 

45. Also, since approximately October 2005, a number of Financial Advisors 

have resigned from the Detroit office of MS, including one who resigned in approximately May 

or June 2006. MS distributed accounts of greater value from these brokers’ books of business to 

a white male Financial Advisor who is similarly-situated to Ms. Williams than it distributed to 

her. In some cases, MS gave Ms. Williams no accounts from these departing brokers. 

46. Also, while a similarly-situated white male broker was permitted to enter 

into a lucrative partnership with a senior broker, Ms. Williams’ Branch Office Manager told her 

that no one wanted to enter a partnership with her. 

47. By discriminating against her with respect to these and other business 

opportunities, MS diminished Ms. Williams’ compensation. MS denied Ms. Williams these 

opportunities due to her gender and race. 

48. Ms. Williams was also subject to retaliation for complaints of gender and 

race discrimination she made to her Branch Office Manager starting in the Summer of 2005. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 17 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 17 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 12 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Among other things, Ms. Williams complained that she was not given the same opportunities for 

compensation as her white male colleagues. Ms. Williams also complained to her Branch Office 

Manager of the hostile environment she suffers as a result of her race. 

49. After Ms. Williams complained of gender and race discrimination to her 

Branch Office Manager, MS isolated her, including excluding her from Company functions. MS 

also moved her from her office into the bull pen, which is a space reserved for rookie brokers. 

Other similarly-situated white male employees were not required to move into the bull pen. 

50. By discriminating against her with respect to these terms and conditions of 

her employment, MS has diminished the amount of Ms. Williams’ compensation. 

51. By denying compensation to Ms. Williams that it made available to 

similarly-situated white male Financial Advisors, MS has also denied her the ability to reach 

earnings tiers with prestigious titles and greater income opportunities, which MS awarded based 

on a Financial Advisor’s level of compensation. 

52. On or about October 10, 2006, Ms. Williams filed a charge of 

discrimination with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”) and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which she subsequently amended. On 

December 5, 2006, she received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Her charges and 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B and are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF MARGARET BENAY CURTIS-BAUER

53. Plaintiff Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer was employed in the San Francisco, 

California office of MS from approximately October or November 1989 until November 2002. 

She started at MS as a Financial Advisor Trainee, and became a registered Financial Advisor in or 

around 1990. During the course of her employment, MS denied her compensation, business 

opportunities, titles and other conditions of employment that it made available to similarlysituated non-minority Financial Advisors. 

54. Since the beginning of her employment with MS, MS has denied Ms. 

Curtis-Bauer compensation that it made available to similarly-situated non-minority Financial 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 18 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 18 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 13 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Advisors. MS routinely distributed business opportunities, including accounts from departing 

and retiring brokers, referrals, leads, call-ins and walk-ins, and potential clients, to white 

Financial Advisors, rather than to Ms. Curtis-Bauer. As a result of the inequitable and 

discriminatory distribution of accounts and account prospects, minority Financial Advisors like 

Ms. Curtis-Bauer have diminished income potential and diminished actual income as compared to 

similarly-situated white employees. 

55. During the course of her employment at MS, MS distributed the accounts 

of departing and/or retiring brokers to non-minority Financial Advisors with fewer qualifications 

than Ms. Curtis-Bauer. In some cases, MS gave Ms. Curtis-Bauer no accounts from these 

departing and/or retiring brokers. 

56. On the rare occasions when MS assigned a lead or referral to Ms. CurtisBauer, the accounts were of minimal value or had debits. For the accounts assigned to Ms. 

Curtis-Bauer with a debit, she had to collect the money owed by the client for the inactivity fee or 

IRA fee. If Ms. Curtis-Bauer was unable to collect the fee from the client, MS required her to 

either sell assets to pay the fee or MS would take the fee out of Ms. Curtis-Bauer’s commission. 

57. Also, while similarly-situated non-minority brokers were permitted to enter 

into lucrative partnership with senior brokers, Ms. Curtis-Bauer was not given this opportunity. 

Ms. Curtis-Bauer’s Branch Office Managers often helped junior white brokers partner with senior 

brokers, but none of her Branch Office Managers helped Ms. Curtis-Bauer enter into a 

partnership. 

58. MS also discriminated against Ms. Curtis-Bauer as an individual based on 

race by denying her desirable office assignments. At the same time, it provided desirable office 

assignments to similarly-situated white Financial Advisors. MS did not assign Ms. Curtis-Bauer 

to an office until after she had worked at MS for over 10 years. Instead, MS kept Ms. CurtisBauer in the bullpen, an open area intended for Financial Advisor trainees and rookie brokers. 

During the more than 10 years that MS kept Ms. Curtis-Bauer in the bullpen, MS assigned 

similarly-situated non-minority Financial Advisors to offices. Ms. Curtis-Bauer knows that 

offices were available for her during the more than 10 years she remained in the bullpen because 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 19 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 19 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 14 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

MS assigned similarly-situated non-minority Financial Advisors who started after her to available 

offices. 

59. MS also denied Ms. Curtis-Bauer other business opportunities and 

advancement into management arising out of low production. For example, Ms. Curtis-Bauer 

asked her Branch Office Manager if she could be appointed as the point person for ICS Managed 

Accounts business, which would have provided her the opportunity to inform Financial Advisors 

about recent developments with managed accounts. Despite her requests, MS assigned this 

position to non-minority employees who were no more qualified than Ms. Curtis-Bauer, including 

a Sales Assistant who was not a registered broker. 

60. In addition, MS denied Ms. Curtis-Bauer the opportunity to put on targeted 

seminars to build her book of business. For example, Ms. Curtis-Bauer planned a seminar 

targeted to accountants in an effort to increase her business. Her Branch Office Manager did not 

allow her to proceed with the seminar, even though she had already paid a deposit for a room and 

had printed special invitations. Ms. Curtis-Bauer’s Branch Office Manager told her that other 

non-minority Financial Advisors had a monopoly on the accountant seminars. 

61. MS also did not support Ms. Curtis-Bauer in her networking efforts. For 

example, Ms. Curtis-Bauer asked her Branch Office Manager if she could stay at MS’s companyowned hotel room while she attended a roundtable for Black Enterprise Magazine, in which she 

had been invited to speak. Although Ms. Curtis-Bauer offered to pay for her own airfare, MS 

denied her request to stay in its company-owned room. Her Branch Office Manager told her that 

her participation in this event would not result in any business. 

62. By discriminating against her with respect to these and other business 

opportunities, MS diminished Ms. Curtis-Bauer’ compensation. MS denied Ms. Curtis-Bauer 

these opportunities due to her race and color. 

63. By denying compensation to Ms. Curtis-Bauer that it made available to 

similarly-situated non-minority Financial Advisors, MS has also denied her the ability to reach 

earnings tiers with prestigious titles and greater income opportunities, which MS awarded based 

on a Financial Advisor’s level of compensation. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 20 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 20 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 15 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

64. In what MS called a “reduction in force,” it terminated Ms. Curtis-Bauer’s 

employment in or around November 2002. MS unlawfully terminated Ms. Curtis-Bauer because 

she is African American. 

65. At the time MS terminated Ms. Curtis-Bauer, non-minority Financial 

Advisors with less seniority than her were not terminated. MS’s stated reason for her termination 

at the time was that her production levels did not meet MS’s threshold. Ms. Curtis-Bauer’s 

production levels were diminished, however, only because MS discriminated against her with 

respect to account distribution and business opportunities. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Gender Discrimination) 

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams and the Gender Class) 

66. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

67. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams on 

behalf of themselves and the Gender Class they represent. Plaintiffs have timely filed charges 

with the EEOC making classwide claims of discrimination as well as individual claims, and have 

received Notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative 

remedies on their own behalf and on behalf of the Gender Class at the time of filing. 

68. MS has maintained a system that is discriminatory, excessively subjective, 

standardless, and/or arbitrary with respect to the distribution of accounts and business 

opportunities, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment. MS’s discriminatory 

policies or practices described above have denied female Financial Advisors and Registered 

Financial Advisor Trainees business opportunities and compensation, including past and future 

wages and other job benefits, as compared to similarly-situated male Financial Advisors and 

Registered Financial Advisor Trainees.

69. Defendant has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs Jaffe and 

Williams and the Gender Class by maintaining a pattern or practice of denying business 

opportunities and accounts that directly affect compensation to qualified female Financial 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 21 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 21 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 16 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees on the basis of sex. The foregoing conduct 

constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination as unjustified disparate treatment prohibited by 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

70. The class period for the Title VII gender class is from August 5, 2003 to 

present. 

71. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Disparate Impact Gender Discrimination) 

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams and the Gender Class) 

72. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

73. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams on 

behalf of themselves and the Gender Class they represent. Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams filed 

timely charges of discrimination with the EEOC making classwide claims of discrimination as 

well as individual claims, and have received Notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Plaintiffs 

Jaffe and Williams have exhausted their administrative remedies on their own behalf and on 

behalf of the Class at the time of filing. 

74. MS has maintained a system and/or policies that are discriminatory, 

excessively subjective, standardless, and/or arbitrary with respect to the distribution of accounts 

and business opportunities which affect compensation and other terms and conditions of 

employment. This system has an adverse impact on female employees and is not, and cannot be, 

justified by business necessity. Even if this system could be justified by business necessity, less 

discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

75. The class period for the Title VII gender class is from August 5, 2003 to 

present. 

76. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 22 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 22 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 17 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Race and Color Discrimination) 

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Williams and the African American Class) 

77. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

78. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Williams on behalf of 

herself and the African American Class she represents. Plaintiff has timely filed a charge with the 

EEOC making classwide claims of discrimination as well as individual claims, and has received a 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Plaintiff Williams has exhausted her administrative 

remedies on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class at the time of filing. 

79. MS has maintained a system that is discriminatory, excessively subjective, 

standardless, and/or arbitrary with respect to the distribution of accounts and business 

opportunities, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment. MS’s discriminatory 

policies or practices described above have denied African American Financial Advisors and 

Registered Financial Advisor Trainees business opportunities and compensation, including past 

and future wages and other job benefits, as compared to similarly-situated white Financial 

Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees.

80. Defendant has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff Williams and 

the Class by maintaining a pattern or practice of denying business opportunities and accounts that 

directly affect compensation to qualified African American Financial Advisors and Registered 

Financial Advisor Trainees on the basis of race and/or color. The foregoing conduct constitutes 

illegal, intentional discrimination as unjustified disparate treatment prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §§ 

2000e et seq.

81. The class period for the Title VII race class is from December 14, 2005 to 

present. 

82. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 23 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 23 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 18 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Disparate Impact Race and Color Discrimination) 

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Williams and the African American Class) 

83. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

84. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Williams on behalf of 

herself and the African American Class she represents. Plaintiff Williams filed a timely charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC making classwide claims of discrimination as well as individual 

claims, and has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Plaintiff Williams has 

exhausted her administrative remedies on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class at the time of 

filing. 

85. MS has maintained a system and/or policies that are discriminatory, 

excessively subjective, standardless, and/or arbitrary with respect to the distribution of accounts 

and business opportunities which affect compensation and other terms and conditions of 

employment. This system has an adverse impact on African American employees and is not, and 

cannot be, justified by business necessity. Even if this system could be justified by business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

86. The class period for the Title VII race class is from December 14, 2005 to 

present. 

87. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1981 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Curtis-Bauer and the Minority Class) 

88. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

89. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Curtis-Bauer on behalf of 

herself and the Minority Class she represents. 

90. As described herein, MS’s constitutes illegal intentional race, and/or color 

discrimination with respect to the making, performance, modification, and termination of 

contracts prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 24 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 24 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 19 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

91. The class period for the § 1981 race class is from October 12, 2002 to 

present. 

92. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1981 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Williams and the African American Class) 

93. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

94. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Williams on behalf of 

herself and the African American Class she represents. 

95. As described herein, MS’s constitutes illegal intentional race, and/or color 

discrimination with respect to the making, performance, modification, and termination of 

contracts prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

96. The class period for the § 1981 race class is from October 12, 2002 to 

present. 

97. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Gender Discrimination) 

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Jaffe and the California Gender Subclass) 

98. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

99. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe and the California 

Gender Subclass she represents. 

100. As described herein, MS’s actions constitute gender discrimination in 

violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe 

received a Right to Sue letter from the DFEH on April 12, 2006. The pendency of an EEOC 

investigation into Plaintiff Jaffe’s charges tolls the time limit for filing a civil action pursuant to 

the FEHA. Plaintiffs have timely complied with all prerequisites to sue. 

101. The class period for the FEHA gender subclass is from November 1, 2004 

to present. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 25 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 25 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 20 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

102. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Gender Discrimination) 

(Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101 et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Williams and the Michigan Gender Subclass) 

103. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

104. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Denise Williams and the 

Michigan Gender Subclass she represents. 

105. As described herein, MS’s actions constitute gender discrimination in 

violation of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff Denise Williams has filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Plaintiff has timely 

complied with all prerequisites to sue on her own behalf and on behalf of the Subclass at the time 

of filing. 

106. The class period for the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act gender subclass is 

from October 12, 2003 to present. 

107. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Race Discrimination) 

(Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101 et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Williams and the Michigan Race Subclass) 

108. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

109. This Claim is brought by the Representative Plaintiff Williams on behalf of 

herself and the Michigan Race Subclass she represents. 

110. As described herein, MS’s actions constitute race discrimination in 

violation of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.2101 et seq. Plaintiff 

Williams has filed a charge of discrimination making classwide claims with the Michigan 

Department of Civil Rights. Plaintiff has timely complied with all prerequisites to sue on her own 

behalf and on behalf of the Subclass at the time of filing. 

111. The class period for the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act Race subclass is 

from October 12, 2003 to present. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 26 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 26 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 21 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

112. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Age Discrimination) 

(Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff Jaffe only) 

113. Plaintiff Jaffe incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

114. This claim is brought on behalf of Daisy Jaffe only. 

115. As described herein, MS’s actions constitute age discrimination against 

Plaintiff Jaffe in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 

621 et seq. 

116. Plaintiff Jaffe has filed a timely charge with the EEOC making individual 

claims of age discrimination and has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Plaintiff 

has exhausted her administrative remedies on her own behalf with respect to this claim at the time 

of filing. 

117. Plaintiff Jaffe requests relief as hereinafter provided. 

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Age Discrimination)

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.)

(On behalf of Plaintiff Jaffe only)

118. Plaintiff Jaffe incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 

119. This claim is brought on behalf of Daisy Jaffe only. 

120. As described herein, MS’s actions constitute age discrimination against 

Daisy Jaffe in violation of the California FEHA. Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe received a Right to Sue 

letter from the DFEH on April 12, 2006. The pendency of an EEOC investigation into Plaintiff 

Jaffe’s charges tolled the time limit for filing a civil action pursuant to the FEHA. Plaintiff has 

timely complied with all prerequisites to sue. 

121. Plaintiff Jaffe requests relief as hereinafter provided. 

 ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF 

122. Plaintiffs and the Classes and Subclasses they seeks to represent have no 

plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 27 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 27 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 22 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. 

Plaintiffs and the Classes and Subclasses they seek to represent are now suffering, and will 

continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendant’s discriminatory acts and omissions. 

123. MS’s actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and all Class and 

Subclass members substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 

124. In addition, Plaintiffs, the Classes, and Subclasses suffer and continue to 

suffer humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an amount according to 

proof. 

125. MS performed the acts herein alleged with malice or reckless indifference. 

Plaintiffs, the Class and Subclass members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an 

amount according to proof. 

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, the Classes and Subclasses pray for relief as follows: 

126. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Classes 

and Subclasses; 

127. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Jaffe and Williams as 

representatives of the Gender Class, designation of Representative Plaintiff Curtis-Bauer as the 

representative of the Minority Class, designation of Representative Plaintiff Williams as the 

representative of the African American Class, designation of Representative Plaintiff Jaffe as the 

representative of the California Gender Subclass, designation of Representative Williams as the 

representative of the Michigan Gender Subclass, and designation of Representative Williams as 

the representative of the Michigan Race Subclass; 

128. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as Class 

counsel; 

129. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are 

unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the California FEHA, Cal. 

Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., and the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. § 37.2101, et seq.; 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 28 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 28 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 23 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

130. A preliminary and permanent injunction against MS and its officers, 

agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with 

them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth 

herein; 

131. An order that MS institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs 

that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of gender, race and 

color, and that it eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; 

132. An order restoring Plaintiffs Jaffe and Curtis-Bauer to their rightful 

positions at MS, or in lieu of reinstatement, an order for front pay benefits; 

133. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for Plaintiffs and individual 

Class and Subclass members; 

134. All damages sustained as a result of MS’s conduct, including damages for 

emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof; 

135. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with MS’s 

ability to pay and to deter future conduct; 

136. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent 

allowable by law; 

137. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 

138. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems 

necessary, just, and proper. 

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 29 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 29 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 24 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

Dated: August 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: /s/ Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) 

Heather H. Wong (State Bar No. 238546) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

 Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 

Nashville, TN 37219-2423 

Telephone: (615) 313-9000 

Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 

 Adam T. Klein 

Piper Hoffman (pro hac vice) 

Justin M. Swartz (pro hac vice) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor 

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 

James M. Finberg (State Bar No. 114850) 

ALTSHULER BERZON 

177 Post Street, Ste. 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 30 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 30 of 46
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

720105.5 - 25 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 06-3903 TEH 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable. 

Dated: August 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: /s/ Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) 

Heather H. Wong (State Bar No. 238546) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

 Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 

Nashville, TN 37219-2423 

Telephone: (615) 313-9000 

Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 

 Adam T. Klein 

Piper Hoffman (pro hac vice) 

Justin M. Swartz (pro hac vice) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor 

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 

James M. Finberg (State Bar No. 114850) 

ALTSHULER BERZON 

177 Post Street, Ste. 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 31 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 31 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 32 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 32 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 33 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 33 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 34 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 34 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 35 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 35 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 36 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 36 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 37 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 37 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 38 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 38 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 39 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 39 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 40 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 40 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 41 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 41 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 42 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 42 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 43 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 43 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 44 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 44 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 45 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 45 of 46
Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 79 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 46 of 46 Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 80 Filed 08/08/07 Page 46 of 46