Loading
Insurance
11 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Insurance, Human Resources, Employment, Discrimination, Damages
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Tenth Circuit
In EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company et al., the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Jackson National Life entities violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The original complaint, filed on September 30, 2016, asserted claims involving discrimination based on race, color, and sex, along with hostile work environment and retaliation allegations. Later pleadings added claims involving national-origin discrimination. According to the EEOC, employees in Jackson’s Denver and Nashville offices experienced unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, retaliation, and inappropriate workplace conduct. The agency also alleged that certain managers and executives participated in the conduct or failed to respond adequately after receiving complaints.
In January 2020, the court entered a consent decree resolving the EEOC’s claims and the claims of the participating intervenors. The decree provided $20.5 million in monetary relief to 21 former employees and required Jackson to adopt measures addressing compliance oversight, employee training, policy review, complaint procedures, compensation practices, and promotion decisions. At the time, the EEOC described the decree as the largest monetary settlement reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices. La’Tonya Ford did not participate in the consent decree and continued pursuing her individual claims through summary judgment proceedings, disputes over expert evidence, and a 2022 appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The claims covered by the consent decree were resolved without a jury trial or a judicial determination of liability.
The EEOC filed its original complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Jackson National Life Insurance Company and Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC. The complaint alleged discrimination based on race, color, and sex, including unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, discharge or constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The pleading identified La’Tonya Ford, Kimberly Funchess, Alcena Gannaway, and other aggrieved individuals, although the EEOC was the plaintiff that initiated the federal lawsuit.
The EEOC filed an amended complaint asserting Title VII claims against Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC, and Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York. The amended pleading added the New York entity as a defendant before the EEOC filed its Second Amended Complaint in January 2017.
On December 1, 2016, La’Tonya Ford, Kimberly Funchess, Marcus Adams, Kenneth Conley, Alcena Gannaway, the Estate of Kontar Tonee Mwamba, and Marietta Vargas moved to intervene in the lawsuit. The court granted the motion on January 9, 2017, allowing them to participate as plaintiff-intervenors. On February 23, 2017, they filed their First Amended Complaint in Intervention, asserting individual claims arising from alleged discriminatory treatment, harassment, and retaliation.
The EEOC filed its Second Amended Complaint on January 27, 2017, on behalf of nine former employees and other aggrieved individuals. The pleading asserted claims involving discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin, along with retaliation and hostile work environment allegations. It continued the EEOC’s claims against all three Jackson entities, including Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York, which had first been named as a defendant in the amended complaint filed on November 14, 2016.
The court entered a four-year consent decree providing $20.5 million in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to 21 former Jackson employees. The decree required Jackson to designate an internal compliance monitor, retain an outside consultant, review its equal employment opportunity policies and compensation and promotion practices, examine future complaints, and provide employee training. At the time, the EEOC described the decree as the largest monetary settlement ever reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices. La’Tonya Ford did not participate in the consent decree and continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson.
After the consent decree resolved the EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors, Jackson moved for summary judgment on Ford’s remaining discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge claims. Jackson also sought to exclude opinions offered by Ford-side experts Jeffrey Nehls and Dr. Patricia Pacey. Ford filed a separate motion challenging certain opinions offered by Jackson’s expert, Dr. Ali Saad.
The district court granted Jackson’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ford’s remaining claims with prejudice. Because the ruling eliminated the need to decide the pending evidentiary disputes, the court denied the motions concerning Nehls, Pacey, and Saad as moot. The court also vacated the scheduled trial and closed the case at that procedural stage.
On August 23, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ford’s discrimination claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim under the failure-to-promote theory and her hostile work environment claim, and it reversed and remanded her constructive discharge claim. The mandate returned jurisdiction to the district court on September 14, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the district court reinstated the action and directed the parties to identify which motions and briefing should be restored.
Following remand, the district court considered the reinstated portion of Jackson’s summary judgment motion addressing Ford’s constructive discharge claim. The court determined that a jury could find that the alleged retaliation and hostile work environment, considered together, created working conditions that would compel a reasonable employee to resign. It therefore denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim and denied Jackson’s related motion to strike as moot.
The district court addressed Jackson’s restored motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Patricia Pacey, the labor economist Ford disclosed to calculate her claimed back pay and front pay losses. The court formally denied Jackson’s motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions. In its analysis, however, the court determined that the calculations in Pacey’s Second Addendum concerning losses after Ford left Prudential addressed matters outside the claims presented in the case and would not assist the jury. Although the order’s signature block contains a 2022 date, the order was filed on the district court docket on March 31, 2023, following the Tenth Circuit remand.
The district court issued an order addressing several motions filed by Ford and motions filed by Jackson concerning filing restrictions and a self-authored document that Ford presented as an expert report. The court explained that the matters before it did not concern the merits of Ford’s underlying employment discrimination claims and instead involved separate allegations and procedural issues raised in later filings. It struck Ford’s self-authored report because the deadlines for disclosing experts and presenting new damages theories had passed. The order referred to employment-law claims that remained in the case but did not decide their merits or establish a trial date.
Court:
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Case Name:
EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company
Employment Discrimination
Employment Disputes
Equal Employment Opportunity
Gender Discrimination
Harassment
Labor and Employment
Labor Economics
Compensation Plans
Damages Calculations
In EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company et al., the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Jackson National Life entities violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The original complaint, filed on September 30, 2016, asserted claims involving discrimination based on race, color, and sex, along with hostile work environment and retaliation allegations. Later pleadings added claims involving national-origin discrimination. According to the EEOC, employees in Jackson’s Denver and Nashville offices experienced unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, retaliation, and inappropriate workplace conduct. The agency also alleged that certain managers and executives participated in the conduct or failed to respond adequately after receiving complaints.
In January 2020, the court entered a consent decree resolving the EEOC’s claims and the claims of the participating intervenors. The decree provided $20.5 million in monetary relief to 21 former employees and required Jackson to adopt measures addressing compliance oversight, employee training, policy review, complaint procedures, compensation practices, and promotion decisions. At the time, the EEOC described the decree as the largest monetary settlement reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices. La’Tonya Ford did not participate in the consent decree and continued pursuing her individual claims through summary judgment proceedings, disputes over expert evidence, and a 2022 appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The claims covered by the consent decree were resolved without a jury trial or a judicial determination of liability.
The EEOC filed its original complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Jackson National Life Insurance Company and Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC. The complaint alleged discrimination based on race, color, and sex, including unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, discharge or constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The pleading identified La’Tonya Ford, Kimberly Funchess, Alcena Gannaway, and other aggrieved individuals, although the EEOC was the plaintiff that initiated the federal lawsuit.
The EEOC filed an amended complaint asserting Title VII claims against Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC, and Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York. The amended pleading added the New York entity as a defendant before the EEOC filed its Second Amended Complaint in January 2017.
On December 1, 2016, La’Tonya Ford, Kimberly Funchess, Marcus Adams, Kenneth Conley, Alcena Gannaway, the Estate of Kontar Tonee Mwamba, and Marietta Vargas moved to intervene in the lawsuit. The court granted the motion on January 9, 2017, allowing them to participate as plaintiff-intervenors. On February 23, 2017, they filed their First Amended Complaint in Intervention, asserting individual claims arising from alleged discriminatory treatment, harassment, and retaliation.
The EEOC filed its Second Amended Complaint on January 27, 2017, on behalf of nine former employees and other aggrieved individuals. The pleading asserted claims involving discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin, along with retaliation and hostile work environment allegations. It continued the EEOC’s claims against all three Jackson entities, including Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York, which had first been named as a defendant in the amended complaint filed on November 14, 2016.
The court entered a four-year consent decree providing $20.5 million in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to 21 former Jackson employees. The decree required Jackson to designate an internal compliance monitor, retain an outside consultant, review its equal employment opportunity policies and compensation and promotion practices, examine future complaints, and provide employee training. At the time, the EEOC described the decree as the largest monetary settlement ever reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices. La’Tonya Ford did not participate in the consent decree and continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson.
After the consent decree resolved the EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors, Jackson moved for summary judgment on Ford’s remaining discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge claims. Jackson also sought to exclude opinions offered by Ford-side experts Jeffrey Nehls and Dr. Patricia Pacey. Ford filed a separate motion challenging certain opinions offered by Jackson’s expert, Dr. Ali Saad.
The district court granted Jackson’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ford’s remaining claims with prejudice. Because the ruling eliminated the need to decide the pending evidentiary disputes, the court denied the motions concerning Nehls, Pacey, and Saad as moot. The court also vacated the scheduled trial and closed the case at that procedural stage.
On August 23, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ford’s discrimination claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim under the failure-to-promote theory and her hostile work environment claim, and it reversed and remanded her constructive discharge claim. The mandate returned jurisdiction to the district court on September 14, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the district court reinstated the action and directed the parties to identify which motions and briefing should be restored.
Following remand, the district court considered the reinstated portion of Jackson’s summary judgment motion addressing Ford’s constructive discharge claim. The court determined that a jury could find that the alleged retaliation and hostile work environment, considered together, created working conditions that would compel a reasonable employee to resign. It therefore denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim and denied Jackson’s related motion to strike as moot.
The district court addressed Jackson’s restored motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Patricia Pacey, the labor economist Ford disclosed to calculate her claimed back pay and front pay losses. The court formally denied Jackson’s motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions. In its analysis, however, the court determined that the calculations in Pacey’s Second Addendum concerning losses after Ford left Prudential addressed matters outside the claims presented in the case and would not assist the jury. Although the order’s signature block contains a 2022 date, the order was filed on the district court docket on March 31, 2023, following the Tenth Circuit remand.
The district court issued an order addressing several motions filed by Ford and motions filed by Jackson concerning filing restrictions and a self-authored document that Ford presented as an expert report. The court explained that the matters before it did not concern the merits of Ford’s underlying employment discrimination claims and instead involved separate allegations and procedural issues raised in later filings. It struck Ford’s self-authored report because the deadlines for disclosing experts and presenting new damages theories had passed. The order referred to employment-law claims that remained in the case but did not decide their merits or establish a trial date.
Economics and Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff side)
La’Tonya Ford disclosed Dr. Patricia Pacey, a labor economist, to calculate her claimed back pay and front pay losses. Jackson challenged Pacey’s methodology, assumptions concerning promotion and compensation, and calculations involving Ford’s later employment. The court formally denied Jackson’s motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions but determined that the Second Addendum calculations addressing losses after Ford left Prudential extended beyond the pending claims and would not assist the jury.
Human Resources Expert Witness
Human resources testimony can address workplace policies, complaint procedures, internal investigations, and management practices. The analysis may compare written requirements with personnel records and actual workplace decisions to assess whether complaints, disciplinary actions, investigations, and corrective measures were handled consistently.
Statistics Expert Witness
Statistical analysis in employment litigation can address alleged disparities in compensation, promotions, evaluations, or discipline. Workforce records may be examined through regression models, employee-group comparisons, or other quantitative methods that account for position, tenure, qualifications, performance measures, and related employment variables.
Employment Disputes Expert Witness
Employment disputes testimony may address practices connected to allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or constructive discharge. The review can cover personnel files, disciplinary decisions, complaint systems, investigation procedures, management responses, and the employer’s application of its stated workplace policies.
Review Workplace Records Before Fixing a Litigation Strategy
Employment claims often turn on the difference between an employer’s written policies and the decisions reflected in its records. Counsel should examine compensation files, promotion materials, complaints, investigation documents, personnel records, and management communications before defining the case theory. In litigation involving several employees, offices, and decision-makers, this review can separate individual incidents from alleged patterns and identify disputed facts that may affect discovery, motion practice, settlement terms, or trial preparation.
Match Workforce Analysis to the Specific Employment Decisions at Issue
Compensation and promotion claims require more than a broad comparison of employee outcomes. The analysis should identify the positions, decision periods, qualifications, reporting structures, performance measures, and other variables tied to the challenged decisions. Counsel should also confirm that the underlying workforce data is complete and that exclusions, comparison groups, and assumptions are clearly documented. These steps allow the parties and the court to assess whether the resulting conclusions accurately address the claims presented.
Review Expert Opinions for Both Methodology and Claim Scope
Expert evidence must satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards applied under Daubert, but methodological reliability is only part of the inquiry. Counsel should also determine whether the assumptions, calculations, and opinions correspond to the claims that remain before the court. In Ford’s litigation, Jackson challenged opinions offered by Jeffrey Nehls and Dr. Patricia Pacey, while Ford challenged certain opinions offered by Dr. Ali Saad. The district court formally denied Jackson’s restored motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions but found that calculations concerning losses after Ford left Prudential addressed matters outside the pending claims and would not assist the jury.
Draft Consent Decree Obligations in Measurable Terms
A consent decree should state who must perform each required action, when the action must occur, and how compliance will be documented. Monetary relief may be accompanied by training, policy review, complaint procedures, reporting duties, outside consultation, and internal oversight. The Jackson decree required an internal compliance monitor, an outside consultant, employee training, and reviews of compensation, promotion, and complaint practices. Clearly defined duties reduce uncertainty during the decree period and provide a record for evaluating compliance.
Compare Written Human Resources Policies with Actual Decisions
Written policies do not establish consistent implementation by themselves. Counsel should compare policy language with promotion records, compensation decisions, complaint responses, investigation files, disciplinary actions, and communications among managers. That comparison may reveal whether similar matters were handled under the same criteria or whether decision-making varied across employees, offices, or supervisors. The resulting record can inform depositions, document requests, corrective measures, settlement provisions, and the presentation of disputed employment practices at trial.
The litigation followed two separate procedural paths. The EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors concluded through the January 2020 consent decree, while La’Tonya Ford did not join that resolution and continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson National Life. Her case proceeded through summary judgment, challenges to expert evidence, appellate review before the Tenth Circuit, and further district court proceedings after remand. As of the August 13, 2025 order reviewed for this article, the court referred to employment-law claims that remained before it but did not decide those claims on the merits or establish a trial date. The reviewed record addressed disputes involving retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, claimed economic losses, and the permissible scope of expert evidence.
What discrimination and retaliation allegations did the EEOC bring against Jackson National Life?
The EEOC alleged that Jackson tolerated harassment involving female and African American employees in its Denver and Nashville offices. The agency also asserted claims involving unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, and retaliation against employees who complained about workplace treatment.
How much monetary relief did the Jackson National Life consent decree provide?
The four-year consent decree provided $20.5 million in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to 21 former Jackson employees. At the time, the EEOC described it as the largest monetary settlement reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices.
What compliance measures did the consent decree require?
Jackson was required to appoint an internal compliance monitor and retain an outside consultant. The decree also required employee training and reviews of equal employment opportunity policies, compensation and promotion practices, workforce data, and future complaints involving discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Did the January 2020 consent decree resolve every claim in the lawsuit?
No. The decree resolved the EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors, but La’Tonya Ford did not join the agreement. She continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson after the decree was entered.
What happened to La’Tonya Ford’s claims after the consent decree?
The district court granted summary judgment against Ford in March 2021. In August 2022, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her discrimination claim, reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim under the failure-to-promote theory and her hostile work environment claim, and remanded her constructive discharge claim. In March 2023, the district court denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim, while an August 13, 2025 order later referred to employment-law claims that remained in the case without deciding their merits or setting a trial date.
Economics and Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff side)
La’Tonya Ford disclosed Dr. Patricia Pacey, a labor economist, to calculate her claimed back pay and front pay losses. Jackson challenged Pacey’s methodology, assumptions concerning promotion and compensation, and calculations involving Ford’s later employment. The court formally denied Jackson’s motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions but determined that the Second Addendum calculations addressing losses after Ford left Prudential extended beyond the pending claims and would not assist the jury.
Human Resources Expert Witness
Human resources testimony can address workplace policies, complaint procedures, internal investigations, and management practices. The analysis may compare written requirements with personnel records and actual workplace decisions to assess whether complaints, disciplinary actions, investigations, and corrective measures were handled consistently.
Statistics Expert Witness
Statistical analysis in employment litigation can address alleged disparities in compensation, promotions, evaluations, or discipline. Workforce records may be examined through regression models, employee-group comparisons, or other quantitative methods that account for position, tenure, qualifications, performance measures, and related employment variables.
Employment Disputes Expert Witness
Employment disputes testimony may address practices connected to allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or constructive discharge. The review can cover personnel files, disciplinary decisions, complaint systems, investigation procedures, management responses, and the employer’s application of its stated workplace policies.
Review Workplace Records Before Fixing a Litigation Strategy
Employment claims often turn on the difference between an employer’s written policies and the decisions reflected in its records. Counsel should examine compensation files, promotion materials, complaints, investigation documents, personnel records, and management communications before defining the case theory. In litigation involving several employees, offices, and decision-makers, this review can separate individual incidents from alleged patterns and identify disputed facts that may affect discovery, motion practice, settlement terms, or trial preparation.
Match Workforce Analysis to the Specific Employment Decisions at Issue
Compensation and promotion claims require more than a broad comparison of employee outcomes. The analysis should identify the positions, decision periods, qualifications, reporting structures, performance measures, and other variables tied to the challenged decisions. Counsel should also confirm that the underlying workforce data is complete and that exclusions, comparison groups, and assumptions are clearly documented. These steps allow the parties and the court to assess whether the resulting conclusions accurately address the claims presented.
Review Expert Opinions for Both Methodology and Claim Scope
Expert evidence must satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards applied under Daubert, but methodological reliability is only part of the inquiry. Counsel should also determine whether the assumptions, calculations, and opinions correspond to the claims that remain before the court. In Ford’s litigation, Jackson challenged opinions offered by Jeffrey Nehls and Dr. Patricia Pacey, while Ford challenged certain opinions offered by Dr. Ali Saad. The district court formally denied Jackson’s restored motion to exclude Pacey’s opinions but found that calculations concerning losses after Ford left Prudential addressed matters outside the pending claims and would not assist the jury.
Draft Consent Decree Obligations in Measurable Terms
A consent decree should state who must perform each required action, when the action must occur, and how compliance will be documented. Monetary relief may be accompanied by training, policy review, complaint procedures, reporting duties, outside consultation, and internal oversight. The Jackson decree required an internal compliance monitor, an outside consultant, employee training, and reviews of compensation, promotion, and complaint practices. Clearly defined duties reduce uncertainty during the decree period and provide a record for evaluating compliance.
Compare Written Human Resources Policies with Actual Decisions
Written policies do not establish consistent implementation by themselves. Counsel should compare policy language with promotion records, compensation decisions, complaint responses, investigation files, disciplinary actions, and communications among managers. That comparison may reveal whether similar matters were handled under the same criteria or whether decision-making varied across employees, offices, or supervisors. The resulting record can inform depositions, document requests, corrective measures, settlement provisions, and the presentation of disputed employment practices at trial.
The litigation followed two separate procedural paths. The EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors concluded through the January 2020 consent decree, while La’Tonya Ford did not join that resolution and continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson National Life. Her case proceeded through summary judgment, challenges to expert evidence, appellate review before the Tenth Circuit, and further district court proceedings after remand. As of the August 13, 2025 order reviewed for this article, the court referred to employment-law claims that remained before it but did not decide those claims on the merits or establish a trial date. The reviewed record addressed disputes involving retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, claimed economic losses, and the permissible scope of expert evidence.
What discrimination and retaliation allegations did the EEOC bring against Jackson National Life?
The EEOC alleged that Jackson tolerated harassment involving female and African American employees in its Denver and Nashville offices. The agency also asserted claims involving unequal compensation, denied promotion opportunities, and retaliation against employees who complained about workplace treatment.
How much monetary relief did the Jackson National Life consent decree provide?
The four-year consent decree provided $20.5 million in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to 21 former Jackson employees. At the time, the EEOC described it as the largest monetary settlement reached by its Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices.
What compliance measures did the consent decree require?
Jackson was required to appoint an internal compliance monitor and retain an outside consultant. The decree also required employee training and reviews of equal employment opportunity policies, compensation and promotion practices, workforce data, and future complaints involving discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Did the January 2020 consent decree resolve every claim in the lawsuit?
No. The decree resolved the EEOC’s claims and those of the participating intervenors, but La’Tonya Ford did not join the agreement. She continued pursuing her individual claims against Jackson after the decree was entered.
What happened to La’Tonya Ford’s claims after the consent decree?
The district court granted summary judgment against Ford in March 2021. In August 2022, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her discrimination claim, reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim under the failure-to-promote theory and her hostile work environment claim, and remanded her constructive discharge claim. In March 2023, the district court denied summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim, while an August 13, 2025 order later referred to employment-law claims that remained in the case without deciding their merits or setting a trial date.
Did a jury find that Jackson National Life violated Title VII?
No. The claims covered by the consent decree were resolved without a jury verdict or judicial determination of liability. Ford’s individual claims followed a separate procedural path.
Employment Discrimination
Employment Disputes
Equal Employment Opportunity
Gender Discrimination
Harassment
Labor and Employment
Labor Economics
Compensation Plans
Damages Calculations
Insurance
Actuarial, +4
Insurance
Insurance, +4
Insurance
Did a jury find that Jackson National Life violated Title VII?
No. The claims covered by the consent decree were resolved without a jury verdict or judicial determination of liability. Ford’s individual claims followed a separate procedural path.