New York Life Racism Continues - Clifford Marks Complaint KingCast Civil Rights

Case 1:18-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 35
These corporate creeps have been practicing overt and covert racism for years, unabated.
Google KingCast + New York Life to see the videos and further proof
that NYLife systemically persecutes black men who educate toward generational wealth.
I personally visited the hallowed halls of New York Life with an action cam seeking answers.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
More on this coming later this summer from Atlanta
CLIFFORD D. MARKS, ) at my VH2 Net works/Roku TV show:
an individual, ) “Corruption Meets Camera”
)
Plaintiff, )
)
KingCast
v. ) Civil Action No. :__________
)
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, a corporation; and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ALFRED FREDDIE CORINA, )
an individual, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Clifford D. Marks, by and through his
attorneys of record, and for his Complaint against Defendants, New York Life
Insurance Company and Alfred Freddie Corina, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, Clifford D. Marks, who has been
affected by the discrimination alleged in the claims set forth below, seeking
permanent relief from unlawful discriminatory practices involving the failure to
remedy systemic employment discrimination on the basis of race. The practices
committed by Defendant New York Life Insurance Company violate the Civil
1
Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981"). The acts
committed by Defendant Alfred Freddie Corina violate Alabama common law.
OVERVIEW
Plaintiff was an established, highly awarded, top producer in Defendant New
York Life's Mobile office, and in the top 1% of New York Life Insurance
Company’s agents in the United States. Defendant New York Life has exhibited a
consistent pattern and practice of discrimination against top-producing African-
American agents. Defendant New York Life's office has unlawfully terminated or
forced previous African-American agents to resign. In comparison to other agents
who were not African-American, said Defendant provided no training, sales leads,
or referrals to its African-American agents.
As a means of discrimination, Plaintiff believes Defendant New York Life
targeted him with excessive chargebacks, customer service errors, termination and
ultimately fraudulently-induced customer complaints. Through these means,
Defendant New York Life undermined and discredited Plaintiff in order to take his
clients and eliminate him as a competitor. Plaintiff believes that in many cases,
Defendant New York Life used these fraudulently-induced complaints to convince
Plaintiff's clients to purchase new policies that generated a new commission for
Defendant company but left the policyholders worse off.
2
At the time of Plaintiff's termination, there were no other established
African-American agents in New York Life's Mobile office. Many of the alleged
customer complaints have been recanted and appear to have been fraudulently
manufactured and based on misrepresentations made by Defendant New York Life.
New York Life's unlawful discrimination resulted in Plaintiff's inability to conduct
business or engage in contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant
Corina's malicious and false words defamed Plaintiff under Alabama law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. This Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's pendant state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. The Defendant company is located and/or doing business within this
judicial district and division. The Defendant individual resides in this judicial
district and division. This action is brought within the judicial district wherein the
unlawful employment practices were committed, Mobile, Alabama, making venue
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Clifford D. Marks (“Plaintiff” or “Marks”), is an adult
African-American male resident domiciled in the state of Alabama, and this
3
judicial district and division. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant New York
Life at all relevant times within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
4. Defendant New York Life Insurance Company (hereinafter
“Defendant” or “NYL”) is a Delaware corporation, which is located and doing
business within this judicial district and division, specifically in Mobile, Alabama.
Founded in 1845, NYL is the third largest life insurance company in the United
States and one of the largest life insurers in the world. Defendant New York Life
was the employer of Plaintiff at all times relevant herein within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. § 1981.
5. Defendant Alfred Freddie Corina is a resident of this judicial district
and division and at all times material herein was employed by Defendant New
York Life.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. Plaintiff is a forty-one year-old African-American male who worked
for Defendant New York Life, one of the largest life insurers in the world.
7. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant NYL around 2003, to sell insurance
policies and other financial services products. Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant NYL as an insurance agent and financial service professional for
approximately fourteen years.
4
8. Plaintiff passed the Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts
Examination ("Series 6") on May 20, 2011, obtaining a license to sell "packaged"
investment products, including variable life insurance policies, variable annuities,
mutual funds and unit investment trusts. Plaintiff then passed the Uniform
Securities Agent State Law Examination ("Series 63") on May 26, 2011. Plaintiff
also obtained the Life Underwriter Training Council Fellow (LUTCF) designation.
9. Over Plaintiff's decade and a half working for Defendant New York
Life, he was consistently a top producer. Plaintiff was ranked among the top 1% of
NYL's entire sales staff for the United States.
10. NYL awarded Plaintiff with substantial awards and accolades for his
sales accomplishments, in almost every year he worked there. From the start,
Plaintiff was an exceptional agent and a top performer. In his first year as an
agent, NYL awarded him Rookie of the Year 2003, and Life Case Rate Leader
2003. Plaintiff continued to be rewarded with the Life Case Rate Leader award in
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2010.
11. Plaintiff was awarded the Life Leader award in 2011, 2012, 2013, and
2014. Plaintiff received the "Centurion" award in 2005 and 2006. He was
awarded New Org. Agent of the Year and Life Leader of the Year in 2006.
Plaintiff was given the Annuity Champion award in 2011 and 2012, as well
5
Annuity Leader in 2012. Plaintiff won the Long Term Care Leader award in 2006,
2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. He was named Established Agent of the Month
Leader in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
12. NAIFA (the National Association of Insurance and Financial
Advisors) awarded Plaintiff its National Sales Achievement Award in 2004, 2005,
and 2007. NAIFA also awarded Plaintiff the National Quality Award in 2004 and
2007. He was named to NYL's Executive Council in 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2010.
NYL then named Plaintiff to its Chairman's Council in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Plaintiff received the Impact Award in 2013. NYL named Plaintiff Advisor of the
Year in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
13. Plaintiff was a member of the Million Dollar Round Table
organization from 2011 to 2015, an exclusive association open only to experienced
financial professionals who consistently earned in the top percentage of the
industry. He sat on the esteemed "Court of the Table" for the organization in 2012,
2013, and 2014.
14. While working at NYL, Plaintiff was consistently ranked among the
very top producers in the nation. Plaintiff was ranked among the top 1% of NYL's
entire sales staff for the United States. Specifically, he was ranked sixty-third out
of 40,000 agents who worked for NYL. Plaintiff earned an annual income of
6
approximately $600,000 per year, and he generated $2 million to $3 million in
premium income per year.
15. Plaintiff was a highly sought-after speaker at NYL events, speaking
to, and motivating, other sales representatives of the company.
16. New York Life has a history of discriminatory practices. There are
currently at least three lawsuits or investigations pending across the United States
which involve African-American top performing NYL agents who allege
discrimination based on race.
17. Plaintiff attended many national award ceremonies for his
achievements. Most of these awards were given at NYL's annual national galas.
Plaintiff also attended many training events. Plaintiff was surprised to find out at a
NYL Coaching series (a NYL training event that agents have to pay to attend) that
he was not permitted to choose his seat for meals and functions at this event, as
there was assigned seating in place. This assigned seating placed Plaintiff and
other African-American top producers at a segregated table for NYL-sponsored
meals and functions. Other African-American agents who were placed at such
tables were Ketler Bosse of Boston, Massachusetts, Eric Nation of Birmingham,
Alabama, Kirk Blackman of Washington, D.C., and Antonio Stankley of
Montgomery, Alabama.
7
18. At least three other successful Experienced African-American agents
who worked for Defendant NYL (and perhaps more) were ultimately forced to
resign, leaving NYL with their clients: Ketler Bossie, Eszylife Taylor, and Eric
Nation.
19. NYL's Mobile office has had organizational problems and has
consistently underperformed other NYL offices around the country. In the last
three years Plaintiff worked at NYL, there have been at least five different
Managing Partners in the office: Kelly Dowell, who was terminated then re-hired;
David Hughes, who was transferred; Russell Atkinson, who was terminated;
Thomas Bello, who was terminated; and, currently, Dennis Farrar.
20. Plaintiff received little to no support from the Managing Partners of
the Mobile branch of NYL. Plaintiff believes that unlike other agents who were not
African-American, he did not receive sales leads or referrals from any of the
managing partners. Plaintiff was repeatedly directed to spend more time assisting
less experienced and less successful agents, more so than non-African-American
agents.
21. Despite the inefficiencies in the office, Plaintiff still managed to thrive
in the top 1% of NYL's salespeople in the nation. Plaintiff was the 63rd highest
ranked producer for NYL out of 40,000 agents.
8
22. The last Managing Partner to take over the Mobile office while
Plaintiff worked there was Dennis Farrar, a former partner of recruiting in NYL's
Tampa office.
23. At that time, across the country, Defendant New York Life was
engaged in a Double Conversion Credit Program which encouraged its agents to
convert the existing policies of their clients. It was nothing more than doubling the
insured's term cash value and crediting it toward a new life insurance product, if
that insured wanted to step it up a bit and pay more premiums. If an insured had
paid $10,000 in term life insurance premiums and wanted to avoid increasing
premiums as the insured grew older, that $10,000 would become $20,000 toward a
whole life insurance policy. The premiums would increase, but the insured got an
additional $10,000 in cash value. Over time, the increased premiums would justify
the double credit conversion
24. Like the practices of other NYL offices, Farrar began to target
Plaintiff from the beginning, seeing an opportunity to profit at Plaintiff's detriment.
Defendant New York Life did not like the fact that he was African-American or
the fact that he had a white female as a Marketing Manager.
25. From a business perspective, established and prosperous agents, like
Marks, generate less income for a Managing Partner, particularly a new one. This
9
is because the office shared less in the production income of the longer-term agents
than a newer agent. Farrar could expect to earn 7% off an experienced agent's
sales, but upwards of 50% from a newer, less experienced agent. Based on this
practice of Defendant New York Life, Farrar began a campaign to remove an
African-American top performer from the office to steal his clients. Defendant
New York Life’s next step would be to further discredit Plaintiff through customer
service errors, and finally through regulatory complaints which would inhibit his
ability to engage in business and find other employment.
26. Defendant New York Life first targeted Plaintiff using internal
financial mechanisms that were used as weapons to discredit, undermine, and
impede his ability to do business. These initial devices include, but are not limited
to, excessive and duplicative chargebacks, and an abnormal amount of customer
service errors involving his clients. Defendant New York Life would call
Plaintiff's clients without his knowledge to discredit and undermine Plaintiff. NYL
personnel solicited customer complaints against Plaintiff, which complaints were
obtained by fraud.
27. When a prospective policy holder whose initial premium payment is
included with his policy is subsequently denied insurance, any advanced
commissions paid to the agent are demanded to be paid back to New York Life. In
10
the insurance industry these are referred to as “chargebacks” or commission
reversals.
28. Chargebacks are fair and justifiable in circumstances such as when the
potential policy holder ultimately is found to be uninsurable. No policy is ever
issued, the amount of the chargeback is defensible, and the commission income
from such sales are "charged back" to the selling NYL agent.
29. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, across the country NYL was
engaged in a Double Conversion Credit Program, which encouraged its agents to
convert the existing policies of their clients.
30. While chargebacks can be justified under certain circumstances,
Defendant New York Life regularly charged back Plaintiff for improper amounts
and for commissions which were fairly earned. These chargebacks increased after
Farrar’s arrival and toward the end of Plaintiff’s time at NYL.
31. Through no fault of Plaintiff's, certain policies were denied by the
underwriting department due to health risks.
32. Plaintiff was charged back for several policies which were declined by
the underwriters: $3,845 for Pamela Dismukes, $2,250 for James Powell, Jr.,
$4,155.12 for Kate Conner, and others.
11
33. In the case of Joel House, whose application for a whole life policy
was denied, Plaintiff was unfairly charged back twice for the declined policy.
Plaintiff was charged $6,369.00 on May 5, 2015, and again for $6,369.00 on July
21, 2015.
34. In the case of Dewarick Spencer, a professional basketball player who
was healthy and financially secure, Defendant New York Life denied the policy
because it deemed the policy as a hazard, and then charged back Plaintiff.
35. In certain circumstances, Plaintiff was charged back and was never
given a reason for the commission reversal. This was the case with Pamela
Williams, a client of Plaintiff's who owned a company named Bayou Oaks, Inc.,
which had $560,000 in annual revenue.
36. Bayou Oaks purchased a simple, nonqualified plan that permitted the
company to offer its key employees bonus compensation, along with immediate
and long-term benefits for them, their families and their business. Under the
program, Williams purchased a Variable Universal Life Policy (policy number
63820204) on September 24, 2014. In addition, in May of 2015, the company
purchased a long-term care policy for Williams.
37. Bayou Oaks never failed to make a premium payment and was
current with all premium payments at the time of the chargebacks.
12
38. For reasons unknown, in November of 2015, Plaintiff was charged
back a commission on the Bayou Oaks VUL policy in the amount of $8,845.63.
Farrar called Plaintiff to inform him of the chargeback.
39. Plaintiff attempted to obtain an explanation as to why he was charged
back for the policy, but was never given a plausible explanation. He was simply
told that it was paid in error.
40. Plaintiff was again charged back an additional $6,489.73 on the same
Williams/Bayou Oaks VUL policy number 63820204, on November 20, 2015.
The only reason given was that it was an adjustment error.
41. Defendant New York Life never revised these chargebacks to
Plaintiff's account nor offered any real explanation as to why they were issued.
42. After Plaintiff’s departure from NYL, Williams began to encounter
multiple errors with her policy. She also experienced harassment by New York
Life’s customer service. Ultimately, at New York Life’s direction, Williams
surrendered her polices.
43. Plaintiff believes that Defendant New York Life told Pamela Williams
to surrender her policy, as opposed to taking a policy loan or withdrawal, because
Defendant New York Life had wrongfully charged back Plaintiff more than
$15,000 in commissions back in 2015 and wanted to cover it up. This harassment
13
and cover up was the result of a discriminatory attitude prevalent within New York
Life’s office.
44. Pamala Dismukes was another victim of New York Life’s customer
service errors and harassment. Dismukes received a letter from Defendant New
York Life on January 17, 2016 stating that she had paid NYL $3,130 in premiums
from January 1 to December 31, 2015. Defendant New York Life then sent
Dismukes a letter stating that Plaintiff was no longer with NYL, and that her long
term care policy’s premium amount was $1,130.31 per month. Dismukes’
premium payment was actually only $391.25 a month. Dismukes, who grew
weary from all the errors, sent Defendant NYL a letter stating that she no longer
wanted to do business with NYL. She further complained about harassing letters
and phone calls.
45. The unusual frequency and nature of the errors involving Plaintiff’s
clients could raise an inference that many of these errors were intentional.
46. Some of Plaintiff’s clients who were qualified for policies at the time
they were issued later experienced economic hardship and were unable to pay their
premiums. Plaintiff bears no fault in the customers’ failed payments for these
policies, but he was still aggressively charged back for them. Plaintiff was charged
14
back $33,539 on Arthur Barker, Jr.'s policy when a premium check bounced
because of Barker's deteriorating financial condition.
47. Plaintiff was charged back $577 for his client Shquana Washington,
$2,250 for Roland Cobbs, $720.56 for Catherine Perrymen, and $1,314 for Gail
Davenporte. In all of these situations, the charge backs were incurred because of
changes in the financial circumstances of Plaintiff’s clients. These insurance
policies were perfectly appropriate for them at the time they made the application.
Intervening events and unforeseen changes in their financial condition made the
continued payment of premiums financially impossible for the policyholders.
48. When Plaintiff's client Clarence Crear's father became ill, he was
unable to continue to afford his policy, and Plaintiff advised him to apply for a
refund. As a result, Plaintiff was charged back $ 8,938.56.
49. James Powell, Jr., who had been declined for a long term care policy
because of health reasons (for which Plaintiff was charged back), was later
approved for a whole life policy. In the meantime, Powell's mother was diagnosed
with dementia. Defendant New York Life continued to harass him to secure the
desired signed policy receipt form. Powell expressed to Plaintiff that he wanted
NYL to leave him alone.
15
50. Plaintiff intervened and asked Defendant New York Life to stop
harassing Powell and not to contact him any further. Plaintiff was charged back
$24,360.84 because the signed delivery receipt form had not been delivered. In
December of 2016, however, the policy receipt was, in fact, delivered, but the
chargeback nonetheless remained in place.
51. At an increasing rate, Plaintiff's clients became exasperated with
customer service's errors, unexpected debits from their bank accounts, and
inaccurate lapse notices. Due to their frustration, several of Plaintiff’s clients just
decided to leave NYL. The number of Plaintiff's customers who received such
errors and harassment raises an inference that they were being targeted by
the customer service division with the specific intention to interfere with and
impede Plaintiff's ability to service his clients, deny him commissions, and
generate commissions for others.
52. Along with excessive unfair chargebacks and customer service errors
that seemed to target Plaintiff and his clients, Defendant NYL began to target
Plaintiff with a far more destructive scheme to discredit him and inhibit his ability
to do business. Defendant New York Life, through its agents, managing partner
Farrar, and agent Freddie Corina, began to encourage and fraudulently
manufacture complaints with various regulatory agencies, including the Financial
16
Industry Regulatory Agency ("FINRA"), and at least three different state insurance
regulatory agencies. Plaintiff suspects that many, if not all, of the complaints
against him were a product of this scheme.
53. Defendant New York Life claimed to have received a complaint letter
from Howard Dean, who was one of Plaintiff's clients. The letter claimed that
Dean had signed blank documents for new policies at the instruction of Plaintiff,
that a loan was processed from the policy, and that the policy had a premium he
could not afford.
54. The Dean letter was not signed by hand and was not dated, but simply
had a name typed in the signature space. There is a stamp on the document that
would indicate it was received on October 2, 2015. Plaintiff questions the
authenticity of this document. Plaintiff believes this may have been the first of
many manufactured complaint letters which all seem to allege signed "blank
documents." Defendant New York Life used these “blank document” complaints
because disproving them is particularly difficult. It does not appear New York
Life registered the Dean complaint with any of the proper authorities at the time.
The failure to report this is very suspicious, and indicates that the letter was
manufactured internally by New York Life.
17
55. Notwithstanding the failure to timely report the Dean complaint,
Defendant New York Life used this matter as a pretext to stop making prepayment
of commissions due Plaintiff, which thereafter required that all steps in the sale of
any insurance be completed and documented before issuing any commission
payments to Plaintiff. By means of this device New York Life thereafter employed
this scheme to create many roadblocks between the sale of its products and the
payment of commissions to Plaintiff.
56. Regarding the “blank documents” which Dean allegedly referred to,
Kate Conner, Plaintiff's former assistant, has confirmed that she completed the
document in her own handwriting. She then gave it to Plaintiff, who in turn
delivered it to Mr. Dean for his signature. When Mr. Dean signed the document,
Plaintiff did so as well. It was not "blank" when Dean signed it.
57. Plaintiff was called to meet with corporate compliance officers Jacob
L. Roberson and William Paul Horton on February 23, 2016 at the NYL
compliance offices in Alpharetta, Georgia.
58. Plaintiff drafted a memorandum of his version of events for the
compliance meeting. Plaintiff mentioned in the memorandum that it was odd that
Dean had gone through all the effort of contacting him to fill out the application,
then suddenly would not answer Plaintiff’s calls or speak to him, but was willing to
18
take the time to call customer service and type out a very calculated complaint
letter. Plaintiff was very suspicious of the Dean letter and the surrounding
circumstances.
59. Plaintiff met with Robertson and Horton on February 23, 2016.
During that meeting Plaintiff outlined the substance of his memorandum, answered
all questions, and explained his understanding of the facts surrounding his
meetings and discussions with Dean.
60. At the end of the meeting, both of NYL’s compliance officers,
Robertson and Horton, stated that Plaintiff had done nothing wrong, and that little
would come of Dean’s complaint. Both Robertson and Horton told Plaintiff that
he should not be concerned about the Dean complaint.
61. On June 3, 2016, Managing Partner Farrar called Plaintiff into a
meeting. Farrar informed Plaintiff that he was being terminated and that it would
be best for him to resign. Plaintiff later found out that this was a common tactic
used by NYL, called using the "black ball" to force top producers to retire.
62. Defendant New York Life stated in its disclosure to FINRA that it
terminated Plaintiff: "Voluntary Resignation made 6/3/2016, company refused to
process resignation and issued a termination 6/7/16."
19
63. In addition, in an internal email dated Tuesday, June 7, 2016, Plaintiff
was listed as "terminated for cumulative quality of business and suitability
concerns." Nothing was mentioned about the Dean Letter.
64. In New York Life’s disclosure to FINRA regarding Plaintiff's
termination, it states the same as above but mentioned that the review was initiated
after receipt of a customer complaint, which may be the first time the Dean issue
was brought up again, almost nine months later.
65. This termination or forced resignation was motivated by race.
Plaintiff experienced workplace abuse during his time working at NYL. At the
time of his termination or forced resignation there were no other African-American
agents in New York Life’s Mobile office.
66. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, which was dismissed on June 20, 2017
because of his alleged status as an independent contractor.
67. Defendant New York Life submitted its first Preliminary Investigation
Request to FINRA regarding the Dean letter on September 7, 2016. This was
almost a full year after New York Life allegedly received the letter. The delay in
processing Mr. Dean’s undated and unsigned complaint, allegedly made October 2,
2015, is suspicious. Defendant New York Life waited until June or September of
20
2016 to make any report to FINRA. This lapse suggests that the complaint was
manufactured or even fake. The Dean Letter was used as a mechanism to deny
Plaintiff commission income and was later used as pretext for termination, and
then used to eliminate Plaintiff as a competitor in the Mobile, Alabama area. 1 If
the complaint letter was real, it would suggest that by not reporting the matter there
was regulatory malfeasance by NYL.
68. After Plaintiff's termination or forced resignation, Defendant New
York Life sent out a letter to Plaintiff's clients stating that he was no longer
associated with NYL. The letter instructed the clients to access Plaintiff’s
information listed by FINRA on its BrokerCheck website.
69. The BrokerCheck website reflects NYL’s disclosure, which states that
Plaintiff "resigned after a review of his business practices raised a number of
concerns regarding the quality of his business, including unsuitable transactions.”
New York Life’s statement that Plaintiff resigned is inconsistent with New York
Life’s disclosure and email which both state that NYL terminated him.
1
Dean was never given the option to free look his policy and receive a full refund of the one full
drafted premium from his account with the conversion cash that NYL gave as incentive to Dean.
Since Dean's policy was never delivered, he was, and is, entitled to a full premium refund under
NYL policy rules and guidelines.
21
70. The disclosure goes on to state that “the review was initiated after
receipt of a customer complaint, which alleged unauthorized loan and withdrawal
transactions relating to traditional life insurance policies.”
71. Finally, the disclosure refers to the chargebacks, stating “at the time of
his resignation, Mr. Marks had an outstanding debt to the company of
approximately $95,000 due to commission reversals."
72. New York Life’s letter to Plaintiff’s clients also enclosed a summary
of policies and accounts that the client had with NYL. It also indicated that NYL
wanted to confirm that the accounts were accurate and whether there were
concerns about the sale, prior servicing, or status of the policies purchased from
Plaintiff.
73. After receiving that letter, Mr. Riji Dixon (one of Plaintiff's clients)
contacted the Mobile office to inquire into the matter and was put through directly
to Farrar. Farrar told Dixon that there had been complaints made against Plaintiff
by other customers. Dixon stated that he had no desire to get Plaintiff into trouble
and that he did not want him hurt in any way. Farrar assured Dixon that whatever
Dixon said would be treated as confidential and that his remarks would not be
treated as a complaint against Plaintiff.
22
74. Farrar told Dixon that he could get a total refund from his NYL policy
in the amount of $46,000, and that Plaintiff would never find out. Farrar told
Dixon that in order to receive this money, Dixon would have to say that he did
not understand what Plaintiff had told him regarding the policies' purchase,
and that he did not understand the products sold to him.
75. Dixon asked Farrar whether this phone conversation was the only
complaint against Plaintiff. Dixon was then told by Farrar and someone in NYL’s
Corporate Office, “No, Mr. Dixon, that is not true, there were others.” Farrar
further stated that there were “many complaints which had been made against Mr.
Marks."
76. Farrar also told Dixon that the IRS had filed liens against Mr. Marks’
income, assets and revenues. Farrar continued, stating that one of the other
complaints made against Plaintiff was “…quite a bit larger than yours.”
77. Finally, the unidentified person in the corporate office told Dixon that
Plaintiff misrepresented the products that clients had bought and "that they may
have signed blank documents." Contrary to what he had been told by New York
Life, Dixon's call was, in fact, treated as a complaint and filed as such with
regulatory agencies, including FINRA.
23
78. When Dixon found out that he had been manipulated into making a
complaint, he was "shocked," and telephoned Farrar. Dixon told Farrar that he was
upset that he had been misled into making a complaint against Plaintiff, and
wanted to retract the verbal complaint.
79. Farrar instructed Dixon that the withdrawal would have to be made in
writing, which Dixon stated that he would do. Dixon then wrote a letter to Farrar
retracting his statement. Despite having advance notice that Dixon would retract
any complaint against Plaintiff, Defendant New York Life proceeded to amend
Plaintiff’s FINRA disclosure document with this second complaint.
80. Farrar came to the lot where Plaintiff and his wife were building a
home. Farrar told Dixon, "We are going to put Mr. Marks out of business and
bankrupt him. I would be surprised if he ever finishes that house." Dixon later
conveyed that this statement by Farrar scared him and made him fearful.
81. Defendant New York Life in essence bribed victimized clients of
Plaintiff by representing to the clients that the only way to get refunds or their
policies reinstated was for them to falsely claim that Plaintiff's actions were
contrary to the policy terms or deceptive or misleading.
82. Dixon has affirmatively recanted his remarks that were filed as a
complaint in a letter to Farrar and through a signed affidavit.
24
83. Plaintiff's clients Dr. Walter K. Little and his wife, Carol Little, heard
that Plaintiff was fired by Defendant New York Life after he had "stolen millions
of dollars" from his clients. Dr. Little called NYL and was directed to Freddie
Corina, an agent for New York Life, who confirmed the story that Mr. Marks had
"stolen millions of dollars" and asked them to come in for a meeting. Plaintiff
believes Corina always had animosity toward him because former African-
American agent Tyson Lee had referred his clients to Plaintiff and not Corina.
84. At the meeting with the Littles, in early January of 2017, Corina held
himself out to be the office manager. During the meeting, Corina told the Littles,
“Mr. Marks’ license was in peril and was suspended and would be revoked.”
Corina also said that “Mr. Marks would almost certainly face jail time because of
his unscrupulous dealings.” Corina misrepresented the true meaning of
documents, withheld documents, omitted relevant facts, and ultimately misled the
Littles about the mismanagement of their fund in the meeting. Yet again, the
clients, here the Littles, were left worse off after these misrepresentations and
omissions.
85. Mrs. Little later described Corina's representations to be “false and
misleading statements mixed with an unrealistic sense of urgency and doom to
persuade us to draft the letter and enter subsequent transactions.”
25
86. After the meeting with Corina, a complaint letter was produced or
drafted, by Corina or another NYL employee, which Dr. Walter K. Little signed.
The letter stated, “My account was horribly mismanaged by Mr. Marks.” The
letter also stated that “I just discovered that the blank forms I signed do not reflect
the intent I approved” and “[m]oreover, certain signatures were not signed or
approved by me and are suspect.”
87. Finally the letter states that “I never saw and was never given a copy
of an illustration describing premiums of $64,000.00 or $5,400.00 monthly debits
and these debits were definitely never ever approved and authorized by me.”
88. Corina recommended that the Littles accept the $46,000 refund money
offered by NYL regarding the VUL Policy Plaintiff had sold them during one of
NYL's double credit conversion campaigns.
89. Corina then recommended that the Littles use those proceeds to
repurchase a new whole life policy from him, which they did. Because of this
scheme, the Littles never saw the $46,000 which had been promised, and Corina
sold them the exact same policy which they had purchased a year earlier while
Plaintiff was their agent. The only difference was that the premium was
significantly higher, leaving the Littles worse off. Ultimately, Corina walked away
with a new commission estimated to be between $20,000 and $30,000, and
26
Plaintiff was charged back twice for a total of $7,371.42 on the whole life policy
he had sold the Littles in March of 2015.
90. As the previous paragraphs establish, the Littles have since recanted
their remarks about Plaintiff and signed a letter laying out what is stated above.
91. Plaintiff asserts that an additional complaint made against him by the
Wrights was also solicited and manufactured by Corina on behalf of Farrar and
Defendant New York Life. Here, Corina and an unidentified corporate
representative of NYL held a meeting with Drs. Bobby and Sharienne Wright.
92. At that meeting, the Wrights were told by the NYL representative that
they needed to take action and that if they did not, they would lose all of their
money. After hearing statements by Defendant’s unidentified representative and
Corina, the Wrights signed a complaint against Plaintiff. Yet again, the document
appears to have been drafted by Defendant New York Life due to its manufactured
nature and the similar allegations, including that the client signed blank pieces of
paper yet again.
93. Like most of the clients who made complaints, the Wrights were in
financial trouble and needed money. Defendant New York Life was offering
Plaintiff’s troubled clients a way to get cash in exchange for a complaint against
Plaintiff. Here, the Wrights owed a significant amount of money in back taxes to
27
the IRS. Dr. Sharienne Wright had spoken with Plaintiff numerous times in
person, on the phone and via text about the difficult financial situation the Wrights
were in because they had not paid taxes since 2011.
94. The Wrights’ complaint asserted that they had “lost $100,000s of
dollars" due to Plaintiff. The Wrights held a Variable Annuity Policy. Under NYL
procedure, policyholders are the only ones with the ability to withdraw funds from
this type of policy. Agents do not have the ability to access these funds for a
withdrawal. One of the Wrights would have to at least verbally order a withdrawal
of funds.
95. Plaintiff later learned that three payments were made to the Wrights
out of their policy, the first in 2014 for $52,500, a second in 2014 for $30,000, and
a third in 2016 for $25,500. This would equal a total of $108,000, very close to the
"$100,00s of dollars" that were lost.
96. In the end it turned out that the Wrights themselves withdrew the
money and paid it to the IRS. Plaintiff discussed the complaint with the Wrights
and showed them the actual signed documents. After learning the truth about their
accounts, the Wrights recanted the Corina-induced remarks.
97. Plaintiff held insurance policies through Defendant New York Life for
himself, his employees, and family members. Plaintiff paid the premiums out of
28
his earnings account, under a “NYLA” plan he held with Defendant NYL. Under
that arrangement, Defendant New York Life would deduct the premiums from
Plaintiff’s earnings prior to paying Plaintiff for the policies he sold.
98. After Plaintiff's termination, in a letter dated June 27, 2016, NYL
notified Plaintiff that his daughter's policy had lapsed in February 2016, and that if
he wanted to reinstate the policy he would have to pay $3,475.24. NYL claimed
that Plaintiff had not paid the premium payments for February, March, April, May
and June of 2016. During that same period, Plaintiff claims that every premium
that was due had been paid from Plaintiff's ledger or NYLA Plan (Employee)
Account.
99. Plaintiff's daughter's policy had an APL (Automatic Premium Loan)
Option. If the premiums are not paid, the APL option is triggered, and money is
automatically withdrawn from the policy to pay the premium. This APL option
ensures there is never any lapse in policy payments.
100. No payment was missed. Even if it had been, the APL option should
have covered it. NYL intentionally neglected to credit the payments made from
Plaintiff's account and purposefully ignored the APL option as a pretext to harass,
discriminate against, and deplete Plaintiff’s financial resources. Defendant New
York Life fraudulently charged Plaintiff when NYL deducted the payments in the
29
first place and alleged that they were not paid. Defendant New York Life
fraudulently charged Plaintiff again when it collected the $3,475.24 check that was
drawn from Plaintiff’s wife’s account to cover the alleged "lapse" in Plaintiff's
daughter's policy.
101. As a result of Defendant NYL’s unlawful discriminatory termination
or forced resignation of Plaintiff, and its campaign to discredit Plaintiff through
fraudulently manufactured complaints, Plaintiff has been unable to find or sustain
meaningful work. Plaintiff is unable to service clients, obtain new clients, and is
hampered with significant financial burdens. Plaintiff is also forced to rebut the
vast number of manufactured FINRA complaints, and the irreparable damage these
have done to his reputation. The fees to defend each false FINRA claim have been
devastating to Plaintiff's finances. Defendant NYL has discredited Plaintiff in such
a way that it is likely he can never recover from same.
COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. § 1981:
RACE DISCRIMINATION
102. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
this Complaint as if set out anew herein.
103. When plaintiff accepted employment with New York Life, he entered
into a contract with New York Life, whereby he was entitled to the enjoyment of
30
all the same benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual
relationship as his non-African American counterparts.
104. When New York Life denied Plaintiff support and opportunities for
career advancement, promotion, and equal earning opportunities, it interfered with
the contract with plaintiff and otherwise denied plaintiff the benefits and privileges
of the contract based upon his race.
105. New York Life’s denial of the benefits and privileges of the contract
with plaintiff was intentional, malicious and otherwise in reckless disregard of
plaintiff’s rights under Section 1981.
106. In taking the above described actions, Defendant New York Life
intentionally and willfully discriminated against plaintiff due to his race, African-
American, in violation of § 1981. Plaintiff, an African-American, was not treated
the same as his Caucasian peers regarding sales leads, training, assignments,
promotion, chargebacks, customer service errors, communication with clients,
terms and conditions of employment, termination, and ultimately manufactured
complaints to discredit Plaintiff.
107. Defendant New York Life’s actions were in violation of §1981 and
the XIII Amendment to the Constitution, and were taken with malice or reckless
indifference to the federally-protected rights of Plaintiff.
31
108. As a proximate consequence of the violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by
Defendant New York Life, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
damage to his professional life and future career opportunities, future pecuniary
losses, emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
and non-pecuniary damage.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands the
following relief:
a. Placement in the position(s) in which he would have worked

absent said Defendant’s discriminatory treatment; or, in lieu
thereof, front pay;
b. All back pay from the date of his wrongful termination;
c. An injunction ordering New York Life to cease its

discriminatory practices as described herein;
d. Pre-judgment interest;
e. Attorneys’ fees;
f. Costs;
g. Compensatory damages for loss of wages, loss of benefits,

including, but not limited to, retirement benefits, mental
anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, both past and
future;
h. Punitive damages, to deter such conduct in the future; and
32
i. Such other legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to

effectuate the purposes of § 1981 and the XIII Amendment to
the Constitution, or to which he may be entitled.
COUNT TWO
DEFAMATION (DEFENDANT CORINA)
109. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
this Complaint as if set out anew here.
110. The false, incorrect, misleading and disparaging statements by
Defendant Corina set out hereinabove were designed to disparage Plaintiff, reflect
poorly on him, cast him in a false light, justify his termination, and destroy his
career as an insurance agent.
111. As a result of these false, incorrect, misleading and disparaging
statements by Corina, Plaintiff has been unable to find similar employment
because of the cloud hanging over his head. Corina's malicious and defamatory
actions have sullied Plaintiff's good name and emptied his bank account.
112. As a result of Corina's aforesaid actions, Mr. Marks has suffered
mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation. His inability to find work will
affect his future earnings and professional status for the foreseeable future.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that a struck
jury award him the following:
33
a. Compensatory damages, to include mental anguish, lost

professional income, attorney=s fees, costs, and such other relief
to which he is entitled; and punitive damages against the
individual Defendant, to deter such conduct in the future.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY STRUCK

JURY ON ALL CLAIMS SO TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John D. Saxon

John D. Saxon
Alabama Bar No. ASB-3258-O71J
Donna Smith Cude
Alabama Bar No. ASB-7680-W18A
Mac B. Greaves Jr.
Alabama Bar No. ASB-23359-K71F
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.

2119 3rd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: 205.324.0223
Facsimile: 205.323.1583
Email: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com
dcude@saxonattorneys.com
mgreaves@saxonattorneys.com
34
/s/ Thomas L. Krebs

Thomas L. Krebs
Alabama Bar No. ASB6233S81T
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
Thomas L. Krebs, LLC

15 Office Park Circle, Suite 130
Birmingham AL 35223
Telephone: 205.401.2382
Email: thomaslkrebs@yahoo.com
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS:
Clifford D. Marks
c/o John D. Saxon, P.C.
2119 3rd Avenue North
Birmingham AL 35203
PLEASE SERVE THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS BY

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED:
New York Life Insurance Company

c/o William Horton, as Registered Agent
4001 Carmichael Road
Montgomery AL 36106-3624
Mr. Alfred Freddie Corina

1110 Montlimar Drive, Suite 1010
Mobile, AL 36609
35

New York Life Racism Continues - Clifford Marks Complaint KingCast Civil Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New York Life Racism Continues - Clifford Marks Complaint KingCast Civil Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 35

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Clifford D. Marks, by and through his

Insurance Company and Alfred Freddie Corina, states as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

permanent relief from unlawful discriminatory practices involving the failure to

remedy systemic employment discrimination on the basis of race. The practices

committed by Defendant Alfred Freddie Corina violate Alabama common law.

Plaintiff was an established, highly awarded, top producer in Defendant New

consistent pattern and practice of discrimination against top-producing African-

forced previous African-American agents to resign. In comparison to other agents

or referrals to its African-American agents.

As a means of discrimination, Plaintiff believes Defendant New York Life

ultimately fraudulently-induced customer complaints. Through these means,

Defendant New York Life used these fraudulently-induced complaints to convince

Defendant company but left the policyholders worse off.

At the time of Plaintiff's termination, there were no other established

manufactured and based on misrepresentations made by Defendant New York Life.

New York Life's unlawful discrimination resulted in Plaintiff's inability to conduct

business or engage in contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff's pendant state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. The Defendant company is located and/or doing business within this

unlawful employment practices were committed, Mobile, Alabama, making venue

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

3. Plaintiff, Clifford D. Marks (“Plaintiff” or “Marks”), is an adult

African-American male resident domiciled in the state of Alabama, and this

Life at all relevant times within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

4. Defendant New York Life Insurance Company (hereinafter

“Defendant” or “NYL”) is a Delaware corporation, which is located and doing

5. Defendant Alfred Freddie Corina is a resident of this judicial district

6. Plaintiff is a forty-one year-old African-American male who worked

7. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant NYL around 2003, to sell insurance

policies and other financial services products. Plaintiff was employed by

Defendant NYL as an insurance agent and financial service professional for

approximately fourteen years.

8. Plaintiff passed the Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts

investment products, including variable life insurance policies, variable annuities,

NYL's entire sales staff for the United States.

2004, 2005, 2006, and 2010.

Leader in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

12. NAIFA (the National Association of Insurance and Financial

Year in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

13. Plaintiff was a member of the Million Dollar Round Table

organization from 2011 to 2015, an exclusive association open only to experienced

financial professionals who consistently earned in the top percentage of the

2013, and 2014.

approximately $600,000 per year, and he generated $2 million to $3 million in

premium income per year.

15. Plaintiff was a highly sought-after speaker at NYL events, speaking

to, and motivating, other sales representatives of the company.

which involve African-American top performing NYL agents who allege

discrimination based on race.

17. Plaintiff attended many national award ceremonies for his

other African-American top producers at a segregated table for NYL-sponsored

tables were Ketler Bosse of Boston, Massachusetts, Eric Nation of Birmingham,

Alabama, Kirk Blackman of Washington, D.C., and Antonio Stankley of

18. At least three other successful Experienced African-American agents

Thomas Bello, who was terminated; and, currently, Dennis Farrar.

20. Plaintiff received little to no support from the Managing Partners of

less experienced and less successful agents, more so than non-African-American

ranked producer for NYL out of 40,000 agents.

engaged in a Double Conversion Credit Program which encouraged its agents to

the double credit conversion