Manager sues this bank for Rs 416711420 after getting fired due to...

A former Goldman Sachs employee has filed a five million dollar (around 41 crores) sex-discrimination file against the banking company, claiming that he was fired after taking six months of paternity leave, according to a report by Bloomberg. 

Jonathan Reeves, who worked as a Vice President in Goldman's compliance department in London, UK, alleged that he was fired shortly after returning from his leave, adding that the real reason behind his sacking was the company's disapproval of male staff taking lengthy periods of time off work after their children are born, according to the filings prepared for a court hearing. 

Meanwhile, the banking giant has denied the claims, saying that the employee was fired owing to his por performance dating back several years. 

Reeves's lawyers said in a court document that he "experienced members of the bank’s senior management displaying negativity toward male employees who take extended periods of parenting leave, and toward male employees facing childcare issues more generally". 

They further alleged that the employee was told shortly before his return to work that his "role was at risk", and that he had "under-performed for the first time in his 15-year-long career". Moreover, his termination was confirmed less than five weeks later after he returned to work, something that would not have happened to a "female employee in an equivalent position", the lawyers argued. 

Furthermore, the bank also responded to the dispute and stated, “Goldman Sachs introduced a market-leading right to 26 weeks paid parental leave to all new parents in 2019, and we encourage all our employees to take it. This leave benefits working fathers, as well as working mothers".

What did Goldman Sachs say?

Goldman Sachs said in the court that Jonathan Reeves's sacking was based on his under-performance and not because "he was a man, with his performance compared against both male and female employees". 

They alleged that it was after Reeves’ dismissal that the firm became aware that he had committed a “serious breach" by covertly recording at least five conversations and meetings during his time as a compliance officer.