Home / Dad Succeeds in a Sex Discrimination Complaint Against Goldman Sachs
18th December 2024
Tyler Ross, Trainee Solicitor
In the recently reported Employment Tribunal case of Reeves v Goldman Sachs International [Reeves v Goldman Sachs], a male employee brought successful sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against his employer after being made redundant following his return from paternity leave in 2022.
Reeves had worked at Goldman Sachs for 15 years, most recently as Deputy Global Head of the Respondent’s Control Room. He received regular feedback that he was exceeding expectations and in 2018 was identified as someone who could be promoted to a Managing Director position in 2021.
However, after the birth of his first child in 2019 the employee’s prospects began to dwindle.
In early 2020, Mr Reeves mentioned to one of his bosses that he was struggling to balance his childcare responsibilities, to which his boss replied “you’re a grown man you can sort this out”.
Over the August Bank Holiday weekend in 2020, whilst Reeves was on holiday with his family, he missed an email from his boss attempting to convene an urgent meeting due to a Control Room issue. It transpired that this incident “became a really negative sound bite”, which followed Mr Reeves around during the remainder of his employment with Goldman Sachs.
The following year, Mr Reeves told his bosses he intended to take six months of paternity leave following the birth of his second child, from November 2021 to May 2022. He was then subjected to further detriment as a result. For example, in December 2021 (whilst he was on paternity leave) his performance grading had been changed from ‘meets expectations’ to ‘underperforming’. His pay was then reduced in January 2022 and he was placed at risk of redundancy in May 2022. He was eventually dismissed in September.
The tribunal then considered whether the Claimant suffered this detriment because of his sex. In doing so, it had to consider whether the employee was treated less favourably by his employer than it would have treated a hypothetical woman in the same circumstances. The tribunal decided in the affirmative, based on the fact that there was a “striking coincidence” between the detrimental acts and Reeves’ parental leave.
Similarly, the tribunal found that Goldman Sachs made Mr Reeves redundant because of his sex and therefore held that he had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also ruled that no fair process had taken place, and that a lack of a written redundancy policy, whilst not automatically unfair, no doubt contributed to the employer adopting an unfair procedure.
Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
If you would like more information regarding unfair dismissal, get in touch with the team on 0161 832 3434.