Fired during paternity leave, ex-employee wins nearly Rs 19 crore from Goldman Sachs after tribunal finds he was unfairly treated for caring for his newborn

Tribunal says dismissal was linked to parental leave

According to Bloomberg, Reeves worked in Goldman Sachs’ compliance department in London before being dismissed in 2022.

In its 2024 judgment, the employment tribunal concluded that there was a “continuing discriminatory state of affairs” and that the incidents leading to his dismissal were linked to him, as a man, taking parental leave.

The tribunal later determined the amount of compensation in a judgment issued on Wednesday.

Judge highlights emotional impact on former employee

The tribunal said the discrimination had a “particularly insidious effect” on Reeves.

According to the compensation judgment, the period that should have been focused on caring for his family was instead marked by stress and anxiety resulting from the bank’s treatment.

The award includes compensation for injury to feelings, past and future financial losses, and losses arising from discrimination.

Goldman Sachs disputes the ruling

Bloomberg reported that Goldman Sachs said it strongly disagrees with the tribunal’s decision.

In a statement, the bank said it is a market leader in paid parental leave and encourages all working parents, regardless of gender, to take the full 26 weeks of paid leave.

During the proceedings, Goldman argued that Reeves’ dismissal was based on performance concerns, rather than his parental leave.

What Reeves argued in court

Reeves’ legal team argued that he was selected for redundancy after taking contractual parental leave and that a female employee taking comparable leave for childcare reasons would not have faced the same outcome.

While the tribunal ruled in Reeves’ favour, it also found there was a 50% chance that Goldman Sachs would have dismissed him through a redundancy process regardless.

Reeves had sought £8.9 million in compensation during a 2025 hearing, while Goldman argued any award should not exceed £239,717, according to Bloomberg.

Why the judgment is significant

The case is regarded as one of the UK’s most prominent employment disputes involving claims of discrimination against a father who took extended parental leave.

Over the past decade, major financial institutions have expanded paid parental leave policies to create more gender-neutral workplaces and encourage greater uptake of shared caregiving responsibilities.

Reeves’ lawyer, Jo Keddie, said the judgment is notable because it considers stigma damages, an area that is rarely explored in employment law.

The tribunal found that the litigation could affect Reeves’ ability to secure a permanent role for up to three years, with projected salary losses extending for as long as eight years.

Shared parental leave remains low in the UK

Despite expanded workplace policies, uptake of shared parental leave remains limited.

According to a 2023 UK government analysis cited by Bloomberg, only 5% of eligible working fathers have taken shared parental leave since the scheme was introduced in 2015.