In the case of Mr J R v Goldman Sachs International, a Goldman Sachs banker, Mr JR, won a sex discrimination and unfair dismissal case after being terminated shortly before returning from paternity leave in 2022. Mr JR, a vice president in the compliance department, argued that his dismissal was due to bias against male employees taking extended leave for childcare, rather than the bank’s claim of performance issues.
The tribunal heard that Mr JR, a father of two, faced a dismissive attitude from management when discussing work-life balance challenges. For instance, during the pandemic, a manager told him to “sort this out” when he shared his difficulties managing childcare. On one occasion, while on a family holiday, Reeves was criticised for not promptly responding to an email, which was later labelled a “negative sound bite” on his performance record.
Despite positive performance reviews in 2021, Mr JR was told he was underperforming just before his second paternity leave. While on leave, his role was deemed redundant, and he was dismissed shortly after. Mr JR contended that his dismissal was discriminatory, noting that managers had never put forward a woman on maternity leave for redundancy. During the tribunal, Mr JR highlighted the disparity, stating that the treatment he received would not have occurred if he were a woman on maternity leave.
The tribunal ruled in Mr JR’s favour, citing a lack of a fair dismissal process and linking his alleged underperformance to his parental leave. Although the bank denied wrongdoing, the judgment criticised Goldman Sachs’ handling of the situation, finding it discriminatory. Mr JR’s claim, reportedly worth up to £3.8 million, will be finalised at a future hearing, though his compensation might be reduced due to a 50% likelihood he would have been dismissed later. Goldman Sachs emphasized its commitment to supporting working parents.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
