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.

Factual Allegations

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, Vice Presidents, and Managing Directors at the expense of their female counterparts. The alleged sex discrimination includes:

1. 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;
2. Goldman Sachs maintains policies and practices for promoting its employees that result in the disproportionate promotion of men over equally or more qualified women. As a result, female professionals have been systematically denied promotion opportunities that are routinely afforded to their male counterparts.
3. Goldman Sachs gives its managers, the overwhelming majority of whom are men, unchecked discretion to assign responsibilities, accounts, and projects to their subordinates. The end result is that managers most often assign the most lucrative and promising opportunities to male employees.
4. Goldman Sachs grants its managers unbridled discretion to allocate resources among their employees, including but not limited to administrative support, training opportunities, and informal mentoring. In practice, Goldman Sachs managers exercise this discretion in a way that provides disproportionately greater resources to their male subordinates than their female subordinates.
5. Goldman Sachs' system for evaluating employees' performance systematically discriminates against female professionals by permitting unacceptable levels of subjectivity and bias that result in the undervaluation of female employees' performance.

Proposed Class

In addition to bringing the action on their own behalf, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former female Associates, Vice Presidents, and Managing Directors employed by Goldman Sachs ("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.

Case Status

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, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Francis IV denied the defendants' motion to stay the case and compel arbitration of the claims of one of the named plaintiffs, Lisa Parisi. The Court found:

"Ms. Parisi's individual claims are subject to an arbitration clause signed as part of her employment agreement, and, pursuant to that agreement, Goldman Sachs cannot be required to arbitrate on a class basis. However, because an arbitration clause may not be enforced if it precludes the vindication of substantive rights, and because a pattern or practice claim under Title VII can only be brought in the context of a class action, Ms. Parisi's Title VII claim cannot be committed to arbitration lest she be deprived of her substantive rights."

The Court's order was issued one day after the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) superseded a state law per se prohibition of a class action waiver in a consumer arbitration agreement. On the basis of Concepcion, Goldman Sachs moved for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to compel arbitration.

On July 7, 2011, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration, observing that:

"In this case, the plaintiff would be foreclosed from bringing her pattern or practice claim not only by the practicality of economic pressures limiting the value of her claim compared with the cost of prosecuting it, but also by the actuality of federal case law interpreting Title VII. To the extent that she has a substantive right under Title VII to bring a pattern or practice claim rather than an individual disparate impact claim, she would be precluded from enforcing that right by the arbitration clause in her employment contract."

The parties are now continuing the process of discovery in preparation for the class certification briefing phase. No trial date has been set by the Court.

Contact Plaintiffs' Counsel

Current and former female Associates, Vice Presidents, and Managing Directors of Goldman Sachs who wish to report their experiences at the company, or submit a complaint, should click here to contact plaintiffs' counsel. All information will be held strictly confidential. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.