10. Defendants’ account transfer and lead distribution policies and practices disproportionately steer lucrative business opportunities to FSRs who are not African American. Likewise, “orphaned” accounts are routinely steered disproportionately to non-African American FSRs.  11. Further, Defendants allow certain FSRs to be designated as “Delivering the Promise” specialists. Under this designation, FSRs are granted exclusive access to individual and family beneficiaries of insurance policies served by MetLife. These “Delivering the Promise” specialists are given additional training to assist insurance beneficiaries in their time of need, and the specialists then gain exclusive access to promote MetLife financial advisory services and retain the beneficiaries as clients. The “Delivering the Promise” specialist and referral program harms and has a disparate impact on African Americans by excluding them from opportunities to gain access to lucrative client accounts.  13. The practices described above are ongoing and constitute a continuing violation of the civil rights laws.  14. The racially discriminatory policies and practices at MetLife are uniform and national in scope. Class members are relying on Plaintiff and this lawsuit to protect their rights. Plaintiff Was Subjected To And Harmed By Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct  15. Plaintiff worked as a MetLife FSR from 2001 until he was unlawfully terminated in the fall of 2014. During much of his tenure at the Firm, Plaintiff was the only African American FSR in his region, which encompassed seven states: Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and parts of Oklahoma.  16. Plaintiff, like other African American FSRs, was subjected to race discrimination and retaliation while employed as a MetLife FSR. Consistent with Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices, Plaintiff was denied valuable client leads, referrals, account transfers and distributions. Similarly, Plaintiff was also denied membership in and the benefits of favorable team relationships and specialist designations (including the “PlanSmart” or “Delivering the Promise” specialist certification) due to his race.  18. Plaintiff sought to form pools and teams with other FSRs to assist with the large amount of business he had brought to the Firm. Defendants, however, refused to allow Plaintiff to team or pool with other FSRs and failed to otherwise support Plaintiff in developing this business. Indeed, Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to service his client’s employees or to share in the revenues generated from his client’s business. Defendants instead directed the more lucrative investment portion of his client’s business to white FSRs and denied Plaintiff the benefit of the business he brought to the Firm. Defendants also refused to provide Plaintiff with the PlanSmart training and certification it promised if he successfully acquired the client’s business. However, under nearly identical circumstances, the Firm provided a white FSR with PlanSmart training and certification after the white FSR acquired a sizeable client and allowed the white FSR to benefit financially from the investment business he brought to the Firm.  19. Plaintiff’s complaints about his differential treatment and appeals to management were flatly rejected. In retaliation for his complaints, Plaintiff was threatened with termination. Faced with an imminent and unwarranted termination and an unbearably hostile work environment, Creighton had no choice but to submit his resignation from MetLife in October of 2014 in order to salvage his career from a reported termination on his Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Form U5 Uniform Termination Notice.  21. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff lost wages and other benefits, and suffered irreparable harm to his career, emotional distress, and other nonpecuniary losses. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses in earnings, management opportunities, and other employment benefits, in an amount to be determined by a jury. 22. Plaintiff files this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class of African Americans who worked for Defendants as FSRs and who were subjected to discrimination by Defendants due to their race. All requirements of class certification are met by the proposed class.  23. The class of African American employees and former employees is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  24. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and those questions can and should be resolved in a single proceeding that furthers this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).  26. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).  27. The proposed class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3). The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  28. Alternatively, the issues of determining liability and equitable relief are appropriate for issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4), as are other common issues. 29. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count I of this Complaint.  30. Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, guarantees persons of all races the same right to make and enforce contracts, regardless of race. The term “make and enforce” contracts includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.  32. Plaintiff and all those similarly situated were subjected to and harmed by Defendants’ systemic and individual discrimination. 33. Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count II of this Complaint.  34. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and suffered retaliation by Defendants in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.  35. Plaintiff suffered harm as a result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliation. 6. Defendants maintain a racially biased corporate culture and stereotypical views about the skills, abilities, and potential of African Americans that infect personnel decisions and form the basis of the policies and practices challenged by this lawsuit.  7. Defendants maintain centralized control over their wealth management business, and a nearly all-white team of senior executives issues mandatory company policies that apply to the FSR workforce. These include uniform, Firm-wide policies and practices that govern FSR training; FSR compensation; FSR team formation and pool relationships; the transfer and distribution of leads and accounts to FSRs, including “orphaned” client accounts (accounts previously serviced by FSRs who have left the Firm but that have not been reassigned to a new FSR); and the referral of business opportunities via programs such as “PlanSmart” and “Delivering the Promise.”  8. Defendants maintain uniform, company-wide teaming, account transfer and distribution, and referral policies and practices that result in a segregated workforce and significant racial disparities in compensation and attrition. These policies and practices also have a disparate impact on African Americans.  RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981  RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981 