Mackey said the policy negated Merrill Lynch's promises in its $160 million settlement in August 2013 with hundreds of Black brokers who alleged bias in pay, promotions…
Bank of America faces a lawsuit from a former financial adviser who says the bank walked away from a commitment made in a 2013 racial bias settlement. The adviser, identified as Mackey, claims the bank now forces employees to arbitrate discrimination claims, contradicting assurances given when the earlier dispute was resolved.
The 2013 settlement involved Merrill Lynch, a Bank of America unit, and hundreds of Black brokers. Those brokers had alleged bias in pay, promotions and the allocation of large accounts. The settlement was valued at $160 million. According to Mackey, the promises made then are being undermined by the current mandatory arbitration policy.
Why This Matters For Businesses
The case highlights the risks companies face when settlement commitments collide with standard employment terms. Arbitration clauses are common in employment contracts because they can keep disputes out of court, reduce publicity and lower litigation costs. But when a company resolves a discrimination case with specific undertakings, those undertakings can limit how far it can rely on arbitration for similar future claims.
For Indian legal, tax and compliance teams, the lesson is broader. Global employers often use arbitration and non-disclosure provisions across jurisdictions. If a settlement includes commitments on how employee disputes will be handled, those commitments may need to be reflected in contracts, HR policies and compliance training. Inconsistent positions can invite fresh litigation, regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage.
The matter also touches on how discrimination claims are treated. Arbitration can be confidential and faster, but critics argue it can disadvantage claimants. Where a settlement has promised a particular process, departing from it can be framed as bad faith, not just a contractual dispute.
What To Watch Next
The key question is whether the court accepts that the 2013 settlement created an enforceable expectation that discrimination c…
Services related to this update
Want this handled for you?
Get a free expert consultation and an exact quote within 24 hours.
Get free quote

