Carson Group responds to discrimination lawsuit

Carson Group fired back at a former executive’s retaliation and discrimination claims in court last week.

The Omaha-based RIA, which is accused of terminating once-chief marketing officer Mary Kate Gulick in response to her attention to how the firm handled an alleged sexual assault by an employee at an industry conference, filed an answer on Thursday to the complaint. In it, the company acknowledges certain indisputable facts but denies any wrongdoing, urging the court to rule in its favor and award attorneys' fees.

The case, which was filed in Nebraska State Court but has since been moved to federal court, was brought in March, just ahead of the company’s announcement that founder Ron Carson would move into a chairman role and that Burt White would become CEO. The lawsuit paints unflattering pictures of Carson, White, and other leaders at the firm. Gulick included lengthy messages with White in her complaint, ostensibly showing that the now-CEO changed his stance the company’s handling of the issue and his attitude toward her. The suit also alleges that it was Ron Carson’s decision to not fire the employee accused of sexual assault, but the company denies that claim in its response.

Gulick stated that she had initially planned to resign from the company in 2022, though she stayed on after the alleged incident out of a sense of obligation to protect other women and people she helped bring to Carson Group. She later accepted a role with less responsibility and a lower bonus potential at the urging of former Carson Group managing partner of wealth solutions Jamie Hopkins, according to court records.

“[I]n the summer of 2022, Mr. Hopkins informed plaintiff that outside investors and/or consultants had expressed concerns with plaintiff’s skills, ability, and conduct towards others,” Carson Group stated in its answer. “Defendant further admits that plaintiff acknowledged to Mr. Hopkins her belief that she did not have the right skill set to lead defendant’s current marketing initiatives and she expressed her intent/desire to return to agency work and her plan to voluntarily resign from [Carson Group].”

Gulick later raised concerns about the accused employee being able to attend another conference.

“[T]he accused non-managerial employee traveled to a single work-related conference and… no concerns were raised about this employee’s behavior/conduct by anyone at the conference (or at any time thereafter),” Carson Group stated.

The case "is a major black eye for Carson Group," said Andrew Stoltmann of Stoltmann Law Offices, in an email. "These are precisely the type of allegations you don't want in this current environment and are more common for broker-dealers than registered investment advisors. The biggest problem might be that this action stirs up additional plaintiffs to come forward and to file similar claims."

However, "at this point these are mere allegations, and anyone can allege anything in a lawsuit or arbitration claim. Discovery will be crucial in flushing out the conduct and potential parade of horribles," he said.

As a result of the company’s level of action on the issue, Gulick said her mental and physical health deteriorated, and she sought leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The company indicated that she could use paid time off to cover some of her absence, according to the complaint and response.

In a meeting with White, Gulick claimed that he saw the only resolution to her problems at work was to exit Carson Group – though the company responded to that allegation that White and Gulick jointly agreed at the meeting that she should leave the company.

Further, the firm stated that the claims may be barred by statutes of limitations, that the company’s actions were made in good faith, and that Gulick suffered no damages as a result of Carson Group, among other defenses. The company also said that she does not qualify as a person with a disability under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“All alleged adverse actions during plaintiff’s employment occurred based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons entirely unrelated to plaintiff’s gender, alleged disability, or any alleged protected activity,” the company stated.