Goldman Sachs Found to Have Unfairly Dismissed Senior Employee During Paternity Leave  

Jonathan Reeves, a long-serving senior executive at Goldman Sachs, was "wholly unfairly" dismissed during his paternity leave, an employment tribunal has ruled. The judgment found that Reeves was discriminated against and made redundant while he was on parental leave—a decision that the tribunal considered highly questionable.  

The Tribunal’s Findings  

Employment Judge Louise Brown held that Reeves’ dismissal closely aligned with his parental leave period, noting in the ruling: "All the alleged detrimental acts were done while the claimant was on parental leave, which is for the purpose of bonding with and caring for children." The tribunal emphasised the “striking coincidence” between Reeves’ leave and the actions taken by Goldman Sachs.  

Reeves had worked at the bank for 15 years, from 2007 until December 2022, when he was dismissed on grounds of redundancy. However, he alleged that the real reason for his removal was his six-month paternity leave.  

Restructuring or Targeted Removal?

According to the tribunal, Goldman Sachs favoured two colleagues, Amy Grady and Godwin Tse, over Reeves, arguing that they had "stepped up" to become co-global heads of the bank’s compliance-focused control room during Reeves' absence.  

While Goldman Sachs insisted that the restructuring meant only two leadership roles were required instead of three, Judge Brown rejected this claim, pointing out that the reorganisation actually increased the number of available roles rather than reducing them.  

“There was no reorganisation whereby some of the claimant's duties were allocated to different roles,” the judge wrote. "Indeed, the roles remained the same after the reorganisation, with more people carrying them out." 

Discriminatory Treatment During Paternity Leave  

Beyond the redundancy decision, Reeves also faced direct discrimination from senior figures at the bank during his parental leave.  

One manager, Omar Beer, referred to Reeves as "lazy" for not actively looking for new roles while still on paternity leave. Meanwhile, another manager, Ada Liu, accused Reeves of "underperforming," despite his previous annual review stating that his performance had met expectations.  

Adding to the discriminatory behaviour, Liu raised a complaint about an email Reeves had failed to answer while he was on holiday with his wife and child in Cornwall—an event that had occurred 18 months earlier. According to Liu, Reeves’ lack of immediate response "became a really negative soundbite" that tarnished how senior managers perceived him.  

The tribunal criticised Goldman Sachs for failing to provide concrete reasons for Reeves’ alleged underperformance, stating that the bank relied on "clichéd generalisations" rather than any genuine explanation.  

Would Reeves Have Been Dismissed Anyway?  

Despite ruling in favour of Reeves, the tribunal acknowledged that there was a 50% chance that Goldman Sachs would have dismissed him regardless, due to the company already having another manager lined up for promotion.  

Nevertheless, the findings raise serious concerns about how Goldman Sachs handled parental leave, redundancy decisions, and workplace discrimination—especially for senior employees taking extended leave for family reasons.  

Implications of the Case  

The ruling is expected to draw attention to corporate policies on paternity leave and workplace discrimination, particularly in the financial sector, where intense competition often leads to aggressive personnel decisions.  

Reeves’ case underscores the importance of employment protections for parents, with the tribunal’s findings highlighting how parental leave can sometimes be unfairly used against employees rather than protected as a right.