McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
672 F.3d 482 (2012)
George McReynolds (plaintiff) filed a proposed class action against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch) (defendant), alleging that Merrill Lynch had two company-wide policies that had a disparate discriminatory impact on Black brokers: a teaming policy and an account-distribution policy. Under the teaming policy, Merrill Lynch allowed brokers to form their own teams to pool clients and revenue. McReynolds alleged that brokers on teams had an edge in obtaining revenue and that White brokers intentionally or unintentionally tended to choose other White brokers as teammates, causing a disparate discriminatory impact on the performance of Black brokers who were not invited to join a team. Under the account-distribution policy, if a broker left the company, Merrill Lynch distributed that broker’s accounts to brokers or teams in the same office based on performance criteria. According to the proposed class action, using performance criteria compounded the negative impact of the teaming policy to further inhibit Black brokers’ ability to compete, perform well, and receive higher compensation. Both policies were corporate policies that applied to the entire company, although lower-level managers were allowed to veto team choices and to add criteria to the account-distribution formula. McReynolds filed a motion to certify a class of 700 Black brokers solely on the issue of whether Merrill Lynch’s two company-wide policies had a disparate discriminatory impact. The proposed class was seeking only injunctive relief. The district court denied the certification motion, finding that (1) generally, Merrill Lynch delegated decisions about broker compensation to local or regional managers and (2) an employment-discrimination class was likely unmanageable and should not be certified if local managers committed the alleged discrimination. McReynolds appealed the certification denial to the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.