Class Action Claims Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Favors White, Male Employees Over Minorities and Women

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Two individuals who worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) claim the agency and its acting director, John Mulvaney, have unlawfully discriminated against minority and female employees, causing them to receive “lower pay and performance appraisals and fewer promotions” than their white or male coworkers. From the complaint:

“The CFPB maintains a biased culture replete with harmful stereotypes regarding its racial minority and female employees that infect its policies and decision-making, including performance evaluations, compensation, and promotions.”

The plaintiffs claim in their proposed class action lawsuit that the defendants employed “[b]ureau-wide policies and practices” that resulted in a disproportionate number of white male employees filling out the top pay bands while minority and female employees were overrepresented in the lower pay bands. According to the lawsuit, the bureau’s performance assessments were skewed to favor white and male employees, leading these individuals to be chosen more frequently for promotions, training opportunities, and higher salaries. The case claims that female and minority employees, on the other hand, were assigned more complex investigations that took longer to close, which thereby caused them to score lower on performance assessments.

Moreover, the suit claims minorities and women, regardless of their performance, were overlooked for better positions and leadership training for which they were qualified and were generally denied opportunities to advance within the CFPB.

The first plaintiff, an African American woman, says she was treated less favorably than her white male counterparts and was retaliated against for complaining to the defendants about the bureau’s alleged discrimination. She says that after she filed a complaint with the CFPB’s Equal Opportunity Office (EEO), the defendants denied her request for reasonable accommodation, which the woman allegedly submitted after suffering “crippling migraines, anxiety and depression.” The case claims this denial was in retaliation for the plaintiff’s complaints and constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The second plaintiff, an Asian and Hispanic man, alleges the defendants similarly denied him opportunities to advance his career despite his qualifications and experience. Echoing the first plaintiff’s claims, the man argues that his complaints of alleged discrimination made him the subject of retaliation from the defendants, who denied the man a permanent position with the agency.

“Notably,” the complaint reads, “when [the second plaintiff] applied for a permanent Consumer Response Specialist position, the Bureau deemed him ‘not qualified’ despite the fact that he currently held that position on a term basis and was extremely qualified and competent in that position.”