Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-6950 (S.D.N.Y.).
Lieff Cabraser and Outten & Golden serve as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against its female professional employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint charges that, among other things, Goldman Sachs pays its female professionals less than similarly situated males, disproportionately promotes men over equally or more qualified women, and offers better business opportunities and professional support to its male professionals.
Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm, which generated $45 billion in revenue in 2009. The complaint charges that Goldman Sachs has distributed the benefits of its enormous success unequally – systematically favoring male Associates and Vice Presidents at the expense of their female counterparts. The alleged sex discrimination includes:
- At nearly all levels of its professional ranks, Goldman Sachs has paid its female professionals less than similarly situated male professionals, even though they hold equivalent positions and perform the same or substantially similar work;
- Goldman Sachs maintains policies and practices for promoting its vice presidents that result in the disproportionate promotion of men over equally or more qualified women. As a result, female vice presidents have been systematically denied promotion opportunities that are routinely afforded to their male counterparts.
- Goldman Sachs’ systems for evaluating employees’ performance lack key safeguards to ensure fairness and proper implementation, resulting in the systematic undervaluation of female employees’ performance.
- Goldman Sachs allows managers, the overwhelming majority of whom are men, to assign responsibilities, accounts, and projects to their subordinates without accountability measures to ensure fairness. The end result is that managers most often assign the most lucrative and promising opportunities to male employees.
In addition to bringing the action on their own behalf, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former female Associates and Vice Presidents employed by Goldman Sachs in the Securities, Investment Banking, and Investment Management divisions (“the Class”), in order to end Goldman Sachs’ discriminatory policies and practices, change its biased culture, and restore lost pay to women disadvantaged as a result of improper compensation and promotion decisions.
Contact Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Current and former female Associates and Vice Presidents of Goldman Sachs who wish to report their experiences at the company or submit a complaint should click here to contact plaintiffs’ counsel or call Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Anne Shaver.
All information will be held strictly confidential. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 19, 2014, a public copy of which appeared on the docket on July 1, 2014. Defendants filed an opposition on July 3, 2014, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on July 24, 2014. On March 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV issued a recommendation against certifying the class. Review of the recommendation is pending before U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres.
On October 15, 2013, the Court ordered Goldman Sachs to turn over internal complaints by female employees relating to gender discrimination, including the names of the complainants. The Court held that plaintiffs are entitled to discover the identities of the complainants because they are potential witnesses with knowledge relevant to the lawsuit.
On September 10, 2012, the Court ordered Goldman Sachs to produce key personnel data and policy documents from 2002 to the present. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that they should only have to produce a small sample of such data at this stage of the case, finding instead that plaintiffs must be able to test their allegations with respect to the entire proposed class.
On July 17, 2012, the Court issued an order concerning defendants’ motions to strike class allegations and for partial summary judgment. The Court upheld the complaint in substantial part, allowing all claims to go forward.
On April 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Francis denied the defendants’ motion to stay the case and compel arbitration of the claims of one of the named plaintiffs, Lisa Parisi. On July 7, 2011, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and District Court Judge Leonard B. Sand affirmed the ruling. However, on March 21, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and held that the arbitration agreement signed by Lisa Parisi precluded her from litigating her claims in court.