Sex Discrimination against men

In Reeves v Goldman Sachs International a Tribunal held that a former employee of Goldman Sachs, who was fired after returning from paternity leave, was dismissed on the grounds of sex discrimination.

It’s still relatively unusual to find cases where men are the victims of sex discrimination, however in this case, the Tribunal believed that the employer’s macho culture had, in effect, given rise to sexist assumptions that influenced the dismissal of Mr Reeves.

The Bank argued that Mr Reeves was dismissed because of performance issues, but the Tribunal found he had been dismissed from his role as Vice President in the compliance department 6 months after returning from paternity leave and Mr Reeves put the case that what happened to him would not have happened to a woman.  The Tribunal found that his intention to take paternity was integral to him being selected for redundancy.  There was some relatively damning evidence against the employer in the case, evidence which suggested that the real motivation for the dismissal was his family commitments, including a comment by his boss when Mr Reeves said he was struggling with work / life balance that “you are a grown man, you can sort this out”.  In another incident, a missed email when Mr Reeves was travelling with his family on holiday, was raised on several occasions by the employer as a serious performance issue for the company.

Comment

The case is only a first instance decision but is a reminder of the protections for working fathers and a caution to employers not to inadvertently make sexist assumptions regarding the commitment to work of men with family responsibilities, when they would give more latitude and sympathy to a female employee.