After returning from paternity leave only to find out that he was fired, a former employer of Goldman Sachs has won his case for sexual discrimination.

Mr Jon Reeves was told that he was ‘a grown man and could sort things out’ when he raised a concern about how he was struggling to manage his work life balance. He has been working for the company since 2007, and worked as vice president in the compliance department in London.

After taking six months extended leave for childcare reasons, Mr Reeves was dismissed by Goldman Sachs.

Mr Reeves told the tribunal that such as thing would never have happened to a woman at Goldman Sachs.

The bank disagreed with him and said that he had been dismissed for longstanding performance issues.

Previously Mr Reeves had held positions at the financial institution in the US and Australia before he returned to the UK in 2013. His first child was born in 2019.

The tribunal was told that on one occasion when Mr Reeves and his family were driving to Cornwall for their first holiday together there was a situation at the bank where senior employees were expected to help deal with it.

As they were driving Mr Reeves did not get the email, and this issue was repeatedly raised as a performance issue.

Mr Reeves informed his bosses of his intention to take six months paternity leave after the birth of his second child. This would last from November 2021 until May 2022. His name was put forward for redundancy in March 2022.

Shortly before the end of his paternity leave Mr Reeves was placed at risk of redundancy, soon after that he was placed on gardening leave and finally dismissed in September 2022.

Gardening leave is an employee's suspension from work on full pay for the duration of a notice period, typically to prevent them from having any further influence on the organization or from accessing confidential information.

The tribunal ruled that no attempt had been made to ensure a fair process was carried out before he was dismissed. They agreed that the dismissal was because of his sex.

A spokesperson for Goldman Sachs stated that the firm ‘is deeply committed to supporting working parents. Hundreds of fathers had made use of the market leading 26 weeks paid parental leave. This had been introduced in 2019.’

The spokesperson said that the company was carefully reviewing the judgement and the reason behind the findings.

Founder of Pregnant Then Screwed Joeli Brearly said that when men take extended parental leave, it is entirely possible that they would be subjected to similar prejudice and bias that women have been for decades.

On occasion this prejudice may be even worse due to entrenched gender stereotypes, where society is led to believe that men should be at work while the mother stays at home to care for children.

Ms Brearly told of shocking stories heard by the charity from men about how employers had reacted to their requests for shared parental leave.

She said that until there is legislation in place that offers a decent amount of paternity leave, which is well paid and ring-fenced, so that if not taken the whole family would lose it, we will continue to see issues such as this wreak havoc on men who want to be involved fathers.

Co-founder of The Dadshift, Mr Alex Lloyd Hunter, which also campaigns for better paternity deals for dads said that while having a good paternity deal on paper may be good, it means nothing if fathers are faced with discrimination when they use it.

Mr Hunter added that the UK has the worst statutory paternity leave in Europe which amounts to just two weeks paid at less than half minimum wage.

Unfortunately, even in workplaces offering better parental policies, the issue at Goldman Sachs showed that far too many employers see an involved father as ‘unmanly.’ This attitude hurts fathers, mothers and children alike.

If we want to see both parents playing a big part in their children's lives, then we need to start with better paternity leave for all. We also need employers to support those fathers who take it.

Next year at a remedy hearing the payout amount will be determined.

1

Go Back to Previous Page