- Goldman Sachs has been ordered to pay a former executive £1.45 million over his dismissal while on paternity leave.
- The tribunal found the bank failed to follow a fair redundancy process, although it said there was a 50 per cent chance he would have lost his job anyway.
- Goldman Sachs says it strongly disagrees with the ruling and intends to challenge the decision.
Goldman Sachs has been ordered to pay a former senior executive £1.45 million after an employment tribunal found serious flaws in the way the investment bank handled his redundancy while he was on paternity leave.
The Goldman Sachs paternity leave case centres on Jonathan Reeves, the bank's former deputy global head of the compliance "control room" in London. Reeves argued that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after being selected for redundancy while taking six months of parental leave to care for his newborn child.
The tribunal awarded him £1.45 million, significantly lower than the £3.8 million he had originally sought. The compensation reflects lost earnings, injury to feelings, a penalty for the bank's failure to follow fair procedures and damages linked to the impact the case had on his future career in London's financial sector.
A redundancy process under scrutiny
Reeves joined Goldman Sachs in 2007 in Salt Lake City before relocating to London six years later. He began his contractual parental leave in November 2021, with the bank offering up to 26 weeks of paid leave to all parents.
Before he was due to return to work in 2022, Reeves was informed that his role was at risk of redundancy. His building and IT access were removed while he remained on leave.
Goldman Sachs maintained that the decision was driven by a reduced need for his position. However, the tribunal had already ruled in 2024 that the redundancy process was procedurally unfair. It found the bank failed to consult Reeves at an early stage, did not carry out an objective redundancy assessment and made insufficient efforts to place him in one of the alternative roles available within the business.
The tribunal also noted that Reeves had effectively been expected to secure another internal position while still on parental leave. During the proceedings, it emerged that one of his managers later described him as "lazy" for not finding another role, despite Reeves having raised concerns with the bank's HR team that his leave made job hunting impractical.
Goldman Sachs challenges the ruling
Although the tribunal found the redundancy process was flawed, it concluded there was a 50 per cent chance Reeves would still have been made redundant had the bank followed a fair process. That assessment reduced the level of compensation awarded.
A spokesperson for Goldman Sachs reportedly said the bank strongly disagrees with the ruling. The spokesperson added that Goldman Sachs considers itself a market leader in paid parental leave and encourages employees, regardless of gender, to take the full 26 weeks available.
Reeves' lawyer, Jo Keddie of Forsters, reportedly said the case highlights how legal action can affect the careers of senior professionals working in highly regulated industries, adding that employment tribunals can take those longer-term consequences into account when assessing compensation.
The case is likely to draw wider attention as employers continue to review how redundancy processes are handled for staff on parental leave, particularly where generous leave policies are promoted alongside workplace restructuring.
