September 21, 2020

Volume X, Number 265

September 21, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Class Certification Granted in Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination Litigation

In a 49-page opinion issued last week, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification to a group of women alleging that Goldman Sachs systemically and pervasively discriminated against female professional employees in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiffs claim they were discriminated against in pay, promotions, and performance reviews, and that Goldman Sachs: (1) employs facially neutral policies that disparately impact women; (2) knows of the policies’ disparate impact on women; and (3) maintains a “boy’s club” culture that discriminates against women. Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., March 30, 2018.  The class includes female associates and vice presidents who have worked in Goldman’s investment banking, investment management, and securities divisions since September 2004 (and employees in New York City since July 2002).  It is estimated that more than 2,000 plaintiffs are included in the class.

Goldman Sachs attempted to defeat class certification by arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs were required to show that its challenged policies concerning compensation and promotion were applied uniformly, but which plaintiffs could not do because the challenged processes were applied by managers in highly individualized ways.

In a fairly unusual move, Judge Torres overruled the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny certification.

On their disparate impact claim, the court agreed that plaintiffs must show that Goldman Sachs used a “common mode of exercising discretion,” but held that this “common mode” did not mean that having flexibility in compensation and promotional decisions rendered class certification inappropriate. The court maintained that to interpret “common mode” in such a way would divest all discretion from lower-level managers, and render the meaning of “common mode of exercising discretion” self-contradictory.

The court distinguished the facts before it from that of the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), where there was an absence of common job evaluation procedures.  There, the employees were subject to a wide variety of policies that differed.  In the Goldman Sachs case, however, it was undisputed that each class member was subjected to the challenged “360 review and quartiling processes,” and that all promotions from the vice president position were subject to a uniform process.

On plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim, Goldman Sachs’ argument that class members lacked significant proof that the common modes were discriminatory also proved unsuccessful. The court concluded that plaintiffs had provided “significant proof of discriminatory disparate treatment,” relying on, among other things, plaintiffs’ expert report which asserted that female vice presidents and associates were on average paid 21 percent and 8 percent less than their male counterparts, respectively.

In one win for Goldman Sachs, the court declined to certify the claim that it maintained a “boys club” culture. Although the court found that establishing this claim could require generalized proof, certification was nevertheless inappropriate because Goldman Sachs’ rebuttal evidence would require individualized inquiries into each particular incident of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stereotyping, impunity of make misconduct, and retaliation.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 96

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

René E. Thorne, Jackson Lewis, Employment Litigation, ERISA Attorney"
Office Managing Principal and Office Litigation Manager

René E. Thorne is Office Managing Principal of the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Her practice covers the full range of employee benefit litigation matters, including representation of employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, and trustees.

In that regard, she has handled numerous ERISA class actions for clients such as Nortel Networks, Target, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Owens Healthcare, United Airlines ESOP Committee, Dunbar Armored, United Companies, Benefits Administration Corporation, and Beverly Enterprises. Ms. Thorne also has handled...

504-208-1755
Juan Obregon, Jackson Lewis, Employment attorney
Associate

Juan C. Obregon is an Associate in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Mr. Obregon’s primary practice focus includes the defense of ERISA plans and plan fiduciaries at both public and private companies, multi-employer plans and plan fiduciaries, and financial institutions providing services to ERISA plans.  He is a member of the firm’s Class Action and Employee Benefits groups, and is an articles editor to the Employee Benefits Newsletter, the firm’s publication covering current events in benefits law.

In addition to litigating ERISA-based claims, Mr. Obregon is also involved in litigating general employment law matters, including non-compete agreements and wage-based claims. He has extensive appellate experience, having practiced before all Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

504-208-5891