An employment tribunal has ruled that Goldman Sachs unfairly dismissed John Reeves, a compliance vice-president, in a case that highlighted tensions over paternity leave and work-life balance. Reeves, who was terminated in 2022 following six months of paternity leave, successfully argued he was a victim of sexual discrimination.
Claims of Dismissal Over Paternity Leave
Reeves, who is seeking £4 million ($5 million) in damages, alleged that his dismissal was not due to performance issues, as claimed by the bank, but because of a cultural disapproval of men taking extended paternity leave. Reeves took six months of leave following the birth of his second child, returning to find himself on a list of employees deemed underperforming.
According to the tribunal, shortly after his return, Reeves told his manager, Omar Beer, about his struggles balancing professional and personal responsibilities. Reeves alleged that Beer dismissed his concerns, saying, “You’re a grown man. You can sort this out.”
Work Performance Disputed
The issues began earlier, with a notable incident during the August 2020 bank holiday. While driving to Cornwall with his family, Reeves missed an email from Beer about a “very urgent” matter. Reeves stated he was unavailable as he was driving and not checking emails. However, he claimed the incident was repeatedly raised as a negative marker against his record.
The tribunal noted that Goldman Sachs used a ranking system to identify the bottom 2.5% of employees, with Reeves’ name included in March 2022. Shortly before his dismissal, Beer reportedly described Reeves as “kind of lazy“, a statement criticised by the tribunal.
Tribunal Criticism of Goldman Sachs
The tribunal ruled that Goldman Sachs failed to conduct a fair process before dismissing Reeves. According to the judgement, “It was not clear to the tribunal when, and on what objective basis, his managers decided that he was ‘underperforming.'” The tribunal also criticised Beer for his apparent unwillingness to consider the challenges faced by employees with young children during the Covid lockdowns.
A spokesperson for Goldman Sachs stated the firm is committed to supporting working parents. The bank noted that since introducing 26 weeks of paid parental leave in 2019, hundreds of fathers had taken advantage of the policy. The firm added that it was “carefully reviewing the judgement and the reasoning supporting its findings.”
Shared Parental Leave: A System for the Privileged?
Reeves’ case coincides with the tenth anniversary of shared parental leave in the UK, a policy that allows parents to split 50 weeks of leave, with 37 weeks paid. Despite its potential, the scheme primarily benefits high earners. According to recent studies, 60% of participants in shared parental leave are among the top 20% of earners, while lower-income families rarely utilise the option due to financial constraints.
The case has drawn attention to whether such policies genuinely support equality or simply serve as an added benefit for already privileged employees in high-income brackets.
Impact on Gender Equality
Reeves argued that his dismissal would not have happened had he been a woman. “What happened to me would not happen to a woman at Goldman Sachs, 100%,” Reeves said during the hearing. His comments highlight the challenges men face in workplaces when embracing roles traditionally associated with women, such as extended parental leave.
Goldman Sachs argued that Reeves was dismissed solely for performance-related reasons. However, the tribunal sided with Reeves, stating there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of underperformance.
Reeves, who joined Goldman Sachs in 2007 and worked across Salt Lake City, Sydney, and London offices, had spent over 15 years at the firm. The tribunal will decide next year the amount of damages he will receive. Reeves claims his dismissal not only caused financial distress but also damaged his reputation and professional standing.
