The JPMorgan adviser sex bias suit landed in Manhattan federal court this week, accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its broker-dealer arm of steering two Black women financial advisers into disadvantageous assignments, stripping them of clients during maternity leave and ultimately pushing them into lower-paying remote roles they say left them no choice but to quit.

Former advisers Laura Agard and Roshanna Richardson filed the complaint Tuesday against JPMorgan and JPMorgan Securities LLC, alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation that culminated in their constructive discharge in 2021.

From Branch Floors to Remote Desks

Agard and Richardson, both Black, said they began their careers as financial advisers in Chase Bank branches in Brooklyn. According to the suit, each later objected to practices they viewed as discriminatory — and soon after were required to accept remote adviser positions with sharply reduced earning potential.

The women say those remote jobs amounted to demotions in all but name, erasing the income needed to support their families.

Agard’s Claims: Transfers, Leave and Lost Commissions

Agard alleged she trained in the affluent Cobble Hill neighborhood before being transferred to a branch in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a historically Black and less affluent area. There, she said, JPMorgan’s internal risk team scrutinized all of her accounts, slowing her ability to build a book of business compared with white advisers stationed in wealthier communities.

As she prepared for maternity leave in 2017, Agard said she worked “up until she went into labor” to close a $1 million account, only to see the entire commission reassigned to another adviser. When she returned, she claimed she was left to rebuild her client base “from the scraps,” a process repeated after another maternity leave in 2019.

Agard also alleged that a 2020 change to annuities commission structures — meant to encourage advisers to sell managed accounts — disproportionately reduced earnings for Black advisers who had been steered toward clients seeking lower-risk investments.

In 2021, after reporting to human resources that a manager had reassigned some of her clients, Agard said she was forced into a remote adviser role with lower total earning potential. Realizing the position would not sustain her family, she said, she left the company in November 2021.

Richardson’s Claims: Barriers to Advancement

Richardson’s experience followed a similar arc, the suit says. After becoming a financial adviser, she was transferred from a Black, working-class Brooklyn neighborhood to a branch in a predominantly white area the bank classified as low- to moderate-income.

At that branch, Richardson said a white, male adviser — with what she described as managers’ tacit approval — blocked her from working with clients holding more than $250,000 in investable assets, preventing her from qualifying for the bank’s private banking client designation.

She alleged she lost her entire book of business during maternity leave, was reassigned upon return, and then saw her clients “decimated” again during two additional maternity leaves.

When that branch closed and she was transferred to a wealthier, whiter neighborhood, Richardson said she was relegated to “playing second fiddle” to a white, male adviser who sought to poach her clients and received the private banking designation she was denied.

The tipping point, Richardson said, came when a new client was allegedly steered to her male colleague for a future meeting while she sat “feet away.” After filing race and sex discrimination complaints, she claims the bank retaliated by forcing her into a remote adviser role she eventually left because it did not provide sufficient income.

Resources Tilted Toward the Affluent, Suit Says

Together, Agard and Richardson allege JPMorgan disproportionately funneled training, administrative support and protections for books of business to advisers serving wealthier clients — advantages they say compounded over time and left others perpetually behind.

They argue the practices contradict commitments JPMorgan made in 2018, when it agreed to pay $24 million to settle discrimination claims brought by African American financial advisers.

Those promises included reviewing branch assignment practices, forming a committee to improve recruitment and retention of Black advisers, increasing investment in diversity hiring and boosting Black representation in management.

“Once the terms of the settlement expired,” the complaint alleges, “Chase reduced even the appearance of any genuine efforts to increase diversity among its employees.”

JPMorgan Responds

A JPMorgan Chase spokesperson said Wednesday via email that the bank “has the strongest commitment to an equal workplace,” adding: “We strongly disagree with these allegations and will vigorously defend against them.”

Attorneys for Agard and Richardson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shona B. Glink and Linda D. Friedman of Stowell & Friedman Ltd. Counsel information for JPMorgan was not immediately available.

As the JPMorgan adviser sex bias suit moves forward, the case paints a picture of careers rerouted, commissions diverted and opportunities narrowed — all playing out, the plaintiffs say, behind the polished counters of America’s largest bank.