Two former JPMorgan Chase & Co. financial advisers, Laura Agard and Roshanna Richardson, both Black women, filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court alleging race and gender discrimination. The suit claims the bank systematically disadvantaged them by assigning them to branches in less-affluent Brooklyn neighborhoods, limiting their access to high-net-worth clients, and permitting male colleagues to poach their accounts—particularly during maternity leaves. These actions, the plaintiffs argue, capped their earning potential and ultimately led to their constructive discharge in 2021, when they felt forced to resign after being demoted to lower-paying remote roles.
This case highlights ongoing challenges in the financial services industry regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, especially for Black women in client-facing roles where compensation is heavily tied to assets under management and commission-based performance.
Details of the Allegations
According to the complaint, Agard and Richardson were deliberately steered toward branches in economically disadvantaged areas of Brooklyn, New York. In wealth management, branch location is critical: advisers in affluent areas typically manage larger portfolios and attract wealthier clients, leading to higher commissions and bonuses. By contrast, assignments to lower-income neighborhoods restrict opportunities for growth, as clients there often have fewer investable assets.
The plaintiffs further allege that JPMorgan permitted male colleagues to inappropriately transfer or “poach” their clients. This was especially egregious during periods of maternity leave, when the women were temporarily absent and vulnerable to such actions. One particularly stark claim involves client accounts being reassigned without consent, directly impacting the advisers’ books of business and future earnings.
These practices, the suit contends, created a hostile work environment rooted in both racial and gender bias. The plaintiffs describe feeling undervalued and marginalized, with limited support compared to white or male counterparts. Eventually, both were transitioned to remote positions with reduced compensation and responsibilities, which they viewed as a demotion designed to push them out—a legal concept known as constructive discharge.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief to address what the plaintiffs call a pattern of systemic discrimination at the bank.
As of December 18, 2025, JPMorgan Chase has not issued a public response to the specific allegations in this lawsuit. The case is in its earliest stages, and the claims remain unproven.
A Pattern of Similar Claims Against JPMorgan
This is not the first time JPMorgan has faced accusations of discrimination against Black financial advisers. In 2018, the bank settled a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by six current and former Black advisers for a total of $24 million. That settlement included $19.5 million in direct payments to over 250 affected employees and an additional $4.5 million fund dedicated to diversity initiatives, such as enhanced recruitment of Black advisers, bias training, reviews of branch assignment processes, and coaching programs.
The 2018 case alleged “uniform and national in scope” discrimination, including assigning Black advisers to less lucrative branches, providing them with fewer resources (like licensed bankers for support), excluding them from programs targeting high-net-worth clients, and resulting in lower overall pay. JPMorgan denied wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to avoid prolonged litigation and reaffirmed its commitment to an inclusive environment.
The parallels between the 2018 settlement and the current Agard-Richardson lawsuit are striking: both center on branch assignments in less-affluent areas disproportionately affecting Black advisers and limiting career advancement.
JPMorgan has faced other discrimination-related settlements and allegations over the years, including:
- A $9.8 million agreement in 2020 with the U.S. Department of Labor to resolve claims of systemic pay discrimination against female employees in professional roles.
- A $1.45 million settlement in 2014 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over class-wide sexual harassment allegations.
- A $5 million class-action settlement in 2019 resolving claims that the bank’s parental leave policy discriminated against fathers by presuming mothers were primary caregivers.
- More recent lawsuits, such as a 2025 proposed class action alleging “fake” interviews for Black candidates as part of performative diversity efforts, and various individual claims involving race, gender, or disability.
These cases paint a picture of recurring scrutiny over JPMorgan’s workplace practices, despite public commitments from leadership, including CEO Jamie Dimon, to improve diversity and inclusion.
Broader Context in the Financial Industry
Discrimination lawsuits against major banks are not unique to JPMorgan. The wealth management sector has long grappled with issues of racial and gender inequity, where performance metrics often favor those with access to established networks or prime territories.
For instance:
- Wells Fargo settled similar claims with Black advisers for $35.5 million in 2016.
- Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit paid $160 million in 2013 to resolve a race discrimination suit from African-American brokers.
Industry-wide data shows persistent underrepresentation: Black employees have declined at many large banks over the past decade, and Black women face intersecting barriers of race and gender.
Critics argue that commission-based models can perpetuate disparities if assignments and client allocations are biased. Proponents of the banks often point to competitive hiring practices and deny systemic issues, emphasizing individual performance.
What Happens Next?
The Agard and Richardson lawsuit could proceed individually or potentially expand if similar claims emerge. Discovery will likely involve internal emails, performance reviews, branch assignment records, and compensation data to substantiate or refute the allegations.
For JPMorgan, the world’s largest bank by some measures, such cases carry reputational risks alongside financial ones. While settlements often include no admission of liability, they underscore the high stakes of fostering equitable workplaces in a highly regulated and public-facing industry.
As the case unfolds, it may prompt broader discussions about how financial institutions assign roles, protect client books during leaves, and ensure fair opportunities across demographic lines. For now, the plaintiffs’ story adds another chapter to the ongoing debate over diversity on Wall Street.