Goldman Sachs Ordered to Pay £1.45M for Sex Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal
Landmark Tribunal Ruling Against Goldman Sachs
By Kirstin Ridley
Background of the Case
LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - A former Goldman Sachs senior compliance officer has been awarded £1.45 million ($1.93 million) for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal after he was fired while on parental leave, a London court has ruled.
Jonathan Reeves, a Goldman veteran who last worked for the bank in London, won the first part of his case two years ago after a judge found he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against in 2022 after he took six months of parental leave under a policy offered by the bank.
Details of the Tribunal Judgment
In a judgment made public on Wednesday, the London Central Employment tribunal awarded him compensation, including for injury to feelings and past and future economic losses, adding that the lawsuit's stigma had hampered his job search.
Goldman Sachs' Response
Goldman Sachs said it was a market leader in paid parental leave and encouraged all working parents - regardless of gender - to take the 26 weeks paid leave offered.
"We strongly disagree with this decision," a spokesperson said. The bank declined to comment on whether it would appeal.
Reeves declined to comment.
Career Impact and Stigma
The former senior vice president and deputy head of the control room - part of the bank's compliance division - had been rated a top-quartile performer between 2011 and 2019.
The tribunal disagreed with the bank's contention that his career had plateaued and that he was no longer considered for promotion.
Because of the stigma of the litigation, interviews were cancelled, job offers withdrawn and prospective employers heightened their scrutiny, despite his credentials and sought-after experience.
Since his dismissal, Reeves applied for 417 jobs, reached the interview stage for 43 and secured two fixed-term contracts.
The tribunal found it would take him three years to secure a permanent position, with salary deficits continuing for up to eight years until the stigma of the proceedings had faded.
Legal Perspective
Jo Keddie, head of the employment practice at law firm Forsters who represented Reeves, said the judgment emphasised that stigma damages were not theoretical.
Implications for Regulated Industries
"For senior professionals in regulated industries, litigation can have profound career implications and this case demonstrates that the tribunal will recognise this where supported by clear and compelling evidence," she said.
($1 = 0.7527 pounds)
(Reporting by Kirstin Ridley; Editing by Alistair Bell)
