Case 2209024/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Reeves v Goldman Sachs International — 2024
- Case reference
- 2209024/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Dengate, Mr S Hearn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Reeves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Reeves was employed by Goldman Sachs International from 2007 and became Deputy Global Head of the Control Room in London. The Tribunal found that, after a period in which he had been rated at or around meets expectations and had strong feedback, his managers began to view him as someone who should move out of the Control Room. It accepted evidence that, when he raised childcare difficulties during Covid lockdown, Mr Beer was dismissive of him as a man, and that this attitude was relevant background to the later treatment.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant was told on 9 December 2021, while on parental leave, that he was underperforming compared with his peers, and that his pay was reduced in January 2022. It found that these acts, together with the later redundancy process and dismissal, formed a continuing discriminatory state of affairs so that the sex discrimination claims were in time. It rejected maternity leave as the comparator and instead used a hypothetical woman taking extended childcare leave under the Respondent's parenting policy.
On the dismissal claim, the Tribunal rejected redundancy as the true reason because the Respondent did not reduce the need for the work and did not eliminate the Claimant's role. Instead, it replaced him with Amy Grady and Godwin Tse in a restructured Control Room, while keeping the same overall number of senior compliance roles. It also rejected SOSR. In the alternative, it found that the process was unfair because the Respondent had effectively decided to dismiss him before telling him he was at risk, did not consult at a formative stage, did not define a proper pool, and did not give him a fair opportunity to compete for alternative roles.
The Tribunal upheld the discrimination claim and the unfair dismissal claim, but no remedy was assessed in this liability judgment. It recorded that there was a 50% chance that, had a fair and non-discriminatory redundancy process been followed, the Claimant would still have been dismissed soon after returning from parental leave. A remedy hearing was listed for 17 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the Respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal: the Control Room requirement had not diminished, because the Claimant was replaced by Amy Grady and Godwin Tse in a structure that still had the same number of senior compliance roles overall and even more posts at deputy/direct-report level. It also held, in the alternative, that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because there was no meaningful consultation, no proper pool, no objective selection exercise and no reasonable search for alternative employment. The Tribunal found a 50% Polkey chance that a fair, non-discriminatory redundancy process would still have led to dismissal after the Claimant returned from parental leave. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal found that a continuing discriminatory state of affairs linked the challenged acts during the Claimant's parental leave. It upheld the complaints that the Respondent alleged in December 2021 that he was performing worse than his peers, reduced his pay in January 2022, placed him at risk of redundancy, failed to pool or score him fairly against Amy Grady and Godwin Tse, did not appoint him to the Deputy Global Co-Head role or other alternative roles, and dismissed him. The Tribunal held that the appropriate comparator was a woman taking extended leave for childcare under the Respondent's parenting policy, not a woman on maternity leave, and that sex was part of the reason for the treatment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.13 EqA 2010 direct discrimination
- s.39 EqA 2010 detriment and dismissal
- s.136 EqA 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(c) and s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
- Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Polkey v Dayton Services
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.