返回资讯中心

爱德华·琼斯被控歧视黑人财务顾问,薪酬低于白人同行

HR Dive阅读约 11 分钟

原始报道

来自 HR Dive

hrdive.com

打开原文

先看摘要

这条新闻在讲什么

爱德华·琼斯公司被六名黑人员工提起集体诉讼,指控其客户转移政策和起薪政策导致黑人财务顾问薪酬更低、晋升更少、被解雇更频繁。一名原告在面试时被建议使用“更种族中性的名字”。公司否认指控,称将积极辩护。

站内正文

详细内容

这里展示站内保存的新闻正文,支持划线和批注;需要核对来源时,可以打开原始报道。

An article from Dive Brief

Edward Jones allegedly paid Black financial advisers less than their White peers

One employee involved in a race discrimination lawsuit against the company also said she was told to use “a more race-neutral name” during an interview.

Published May 26, 2026

Ginger Christ

Editor

  • Share

              Copy link
              
          
          
              
                  
                  Email
              
          
          
          
              
              LinkedIn
          
          
          
          
              
              X/Twitter
          
          
          
              
                  
                  Facebook
              
          
          
          
          
              
              Print
    
  • License

  • Add us on Google

Listen to the article

        2 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have

feedback

.

Dive Brief:

  • Edward Jones allegedly discriminated against its Black financial advisers by paying them less than their White counterparts for years, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit filed May 19.
  • The financial services company’s client transfer policy “disproportionately” provided White financial advisers with accounts that helped them meet performance targets and earn commissions and bonuses, the complaint alleged. Likewise, the company’s salary assignment policy allegedly used previous earnings to dictate starting salary, “a practice that is well-understood to perpetuate market discrimination.”
  • “We strongly deny the allegations in the lawsuit, which do not reflect our values or how we operate as a firm,” an Edward Jones spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “We intend to defend the matter and remain focused on supporting our associates, serving our clients, and acting in accordance with our purpose and values.”

Dive Insight:

The lawsuit was filed by six Black employees and alleged race discrimination.

The workers alleged that the client transfer policy and starting salary policy created an environment in which Black financial advisers “receive less compensation, fewer promotions, and are terminated more frequently than their white peers,” per the complaint.

The lawsuit alleged that the company’s policies violated numerous state and federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits race discrimination in any aspect of employment, such as hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, termination, training and fringe benefits.

One of the plaintiffs, a Black woman, said that during one of her interviews at a Georgia branch location, a senior White financial adviser told her “she should use a more race-neutral name.” The senior worker then declined to hire the plaintiff.

Among other requests for relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a permanent injunction ordering Edward Jones to change its compensation policies and practices to prevent race discrimination.

Plaintiffs and the proposed class “are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Edward Jones’ discriminatory acts and omissions,” the complaint said.

  • Add us on Google

  • Share

              Copy link
              
          
          
              
                  
                  Email
              
          
          
          
              
              LinkedIn
          
          
          
          
              
              X/Twitter
          
          
          
              
                  
                  Facebook
              
          
          
          
          
              
              Print
    
  • purchase licensing rights

Filed Under:

Compliance

RELATED

相关阅读

政策法规

**警察军事假歧视案**:雇主让步后上诉法院仍恢复诉讼

美国第十一巡回上诉法院恢复了一名佛罗里达州警察因请军事假而遭受歧视的诉讼,尽管其雇主已采取补发工资等纠正措施。法院认为,根据《统一服役人员就业和再就业权利法案》(USERRA),原告仍有权寻求其他救济,包括律师费和禁令救济。该案涉及警官James W. Gaylor三世,他因参加空军预备役训练而请假,却遭到主管的负面评价,并因此被剥夺晋升机会和额外任务。法院指出,USERRA要求雇主证明“明确且令人信服”的证据,表明解雇或其他不利行动与军事服务无关,否则即可推定歧视存在。此案对雇主的警示是:即使已采取部分补救措施,仍可能面临诉讼,且雇主需承担严格的举证责任。

政策法规

美国EEOC废除旧执法计划,转向特朗普优先事项

美国平等就业机会委员会(EEOC)于2026年6月4日通过2025-2029年国家执法计划(NEP),取代2024-2028年战略执法计划。新计划聚焦DEI相关的种族和性别歧视、反美国籍歧视、保护女性工作场所单性别空间及宗教自由权,并遵循特朗普行政令,取消对差别影响责任(disparate-impact liability)的追究。民主党委员批评此举将有限资源用于执行政府议程,而非保护所有工人,可能加剧机构士气问题。

政策法规

法庭案例揭示雇主担保签证薪酬差异的歧视风险

一项雇佣法庭案例揭示了雇主在薪酬设定中因移民规则与平等法冲突而面临的间接歧视风险。原告Gharabli女士受雇于Cedar Hope Care Services担任支持工作者,发现来自海外的技术工人签证持有者时薪为12.31英镑,而她和非担保员工仅为10.50英镑。约80%的员工持有担保签证。Gharabli提出薪酬差异后,雇主提高了她的工资,但后续事件导致她辞职并提起包括直接和间接种族歧视、宗教和信仰歧视以及举报人保护在内的多项索赔。法庭认定间接种族歧视成立,因为雇主的薪酬结构看似中立,但使非担保员工(多为英国本土员工)处于不利地位。雇主以移民合规为由辩护,但法庭认为仅凭合规不足以证明比例合理性,尤其雇主未提供证据表明无法负担提高非担保员工薪酬。最终,Gharabli获得14,174英镑赔偿。专家指出,雇主需在遵守移民规则的同时避免歧视,薪酬决策应通过平等视角审视,并保留合理性证据。

讨论 0

登录 后可发表评论

  • 还没有讨论,欢迎第一个发言。

分享到