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.
