Dismissal Following Paternity Leave: Goldman Sachs Banker Claims Bosses Were Dismissive of Childcare Responsibilities

In Mr Jon Reeves v Goldman Sachs International, an employment tribunal ruled that a dismissal following paternity leave was unfair and amounted to discrimination. While the employer claimed the dismissal arose due to “operating efficiency”, the tribunal determined more was at play.

Read on as we examine what happened and the employment tribunal’s conclusions. We will discuss working fathers’ rights and establish what to do if they’ve been breached.

If you’ve faced dismissal from work after exercising your right to paternity leave, please don’t hesitate to reach out. With years of industry experience, Redmans Solicitors are well equipped to provide expert advice and assist with your case. Find out more about how we could help you by:

The Facts in Mr Jon Reeves v Goldman Sachs International

Background to Dismissal Following Paternity Leave

Mr Jon Reeves (“The Claimant”) began working for Goldman Sachs International (“The Respondent”) in 2007. Initially, he worked in Salt Lake City, followed by Sydney, before finally relocating to London in 2013.

In 2019, the claimant had his first child, and while this was obviously an exciting period for him, he had challenges balancing work and childcare responsibilities. When he brought this up with the respondent, however, he was told to “figure it out” and that he was a “grown man” who could handle it.

Matters only worsened when, over the August bank holiday in 2020, the claimant missed vital correspondence from his superior. He had been travelling to Cornwall for a family holiday when he received an email stating, “Need to talk -are you available.”

The respondent required help with an urgent matter, but since the claimant couldn’t read his emails while driving, his assistance was delayed. Nonetheless, he helped rectify the issue and worked through some of his holiday, despite it being the first with his new child.

Unfortunately, even though the claimant worked through his holiday, this incident affected his superior’s view of him. From then on, it was repeatedly highlighted as a “performance issue”, with the respondent stating he had issues responding promptly.

Performance Issues Highlighted by the Respondent

In May 2021, the claimant informed the respondent that his wife was pregnant with their second child. He explained that he planned to take six months of parental leave starting in November. At the time, the respondent appeared happy for him.

Again, though, this attitude quickly shifted. Shortly after the claimant commenced parental leave, his superiors requested his removal from meeting and calendar invitations. One stated, “He will be on parental leave so I don’t think he is likely to dial in, but I also don’t want to give him the option.”

Then, on 9 December, the claimant was informed about his 2021 performance review. Despite previously always having generally positive feedback, he was told that he was underperforming. Although the claimant acknowledged he sometimes fell short, he believed the negative feedback arose due to his family commitments.

Claimant Faces Dismissal Following Paternity Leave

In February 2022, the claimant then learned he wouldn’t be returning to his previous role once his parental leave finished. The worst was yet to come, though, as he discovered he was at risk of redundancy on 5 May.

Since the respondent didn’t have a redundancy policy, no formal consultation meetings subsequently occurred. The claimant was placed on garden leave on 1 June, and five days later, he learned about his employment future. The respondent informed him that his employment would terminate in September and that he would remain on garden leave until then.

Before the claimant’s dismissal following paternity leave, he raised a formal grievance. However, this proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in him bringing unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims to an employment tribunal on 24 November.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following proceedings, the tribunal began by analysing whether the claimant’s dismissal following paternity leave was unfair. The respondent argued that while the claimant was on paternity leave, his department functioned much better, alluding to his alleged poor performance. As such, they claimed that the requirement for his role had become redundant.

However, the tribunal disagreed. For the most part, the claimant had received positive feedback throughout his employment, with no explanation for the sudden concerns. Furthermore, upon examination, the tribunal found “there were more, or the same number of, employees undertaking those roles, before and after the claimant was dismissed.” 

The tribunal then considered that the respondent had made their decision to dismiss the claimant well before they informed him of the redundancy risk. They also found that no redundancy consultation had taken place nor an effort to seek alternative employment for him. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that both the decision to dismiss and the process followed were unfair.

Next, the tribunal addressed the claimant’s sex discrimination claim regarding his extended leave. They first established that an appropriate comparator would be “a woman who has taken extended leave for childcare reasons under the [respondent’s] parenting policy.”

The tribunal found a “striking coincidence” between the timing of the respondent’s decision to terminate the claimant’s employment and his parental leave. Moreover, they couldn’t determine a legitimate reason to justify the respondent’s decision. 

Instead, the tribunal believed comments like those about the claimant being a “grown man” showed the respondent’s dismissive views about men having issues with childcare. Therefore, the tribunal stated a female comparator wouldn’t have been subjected to such treatment, meaning the claimant’s dismissal following paternity leave amounted to sex discrimination. Following the successful ruling, a remedy hearing has been scheduled to determine the claimant’s compensation.

Paternity Leave for Men – UK Rights

After discussing Mr Reeves’ dismissal following paternity leave, we thought it apt to examine the associated rights. In the UK, paternity leave is a statutory right aimed at supporting fathers and partners following the birth or adoption of a child. Recent changes have updated some aspects of the legislation, making it more flexible for employees.

How Much Paternity Leave Are Fathers Entitled to in The UK?

Paternity leave for fathers entitles those eligible to up to two weeks off. Since 6 April this year, this can be taken all in one go or as two separate one-week blocks. The leave must be taken within 52 weeks following the child’s birth or adoption, and, among other things, the individual requesting it must be an employee.

How Much Notice Do You Need for Paternity Leave?

Previously, paternity leave for men had to be requested at least 15 weeks in advance. However, following further changes on 6 April, eligible employees only need to provide 28 days’ notice.

Can my Employer Refuse my Paternity Leave?

Paternity leave for fathers is a legal entitlement, providing the individual satisfies the eligibility criteria. As such, employers cannot stop eligible employees from exercising this right. Should an employer deny the leave, the affected employee can file a formal grievance and potentially initiate employment tribunal proceedings if the matter remains unresolved.

What about Paternity Pay?

Statutory paternity pay comes with its own set of eligibility criteria. For those eligible, they will be entitled to the lower of £184.03 a week or 90% of their average weekly earnings. Any payment received will be subject to the usual National Insurance and tax deductions.

It’s generally a good idea to check if one’s employer offers enhanced paternity pay. While not all companies provide this, it could prove helpful if an individual discovers theirs does. Unlike statutory paternity pay, though, an enhanced payment isn’t a legal obligation.

Dismissal from Work or Breach of Rights? Here’s What You Should Do

Facing dismissal following paternity leave is just one of several ways your rights could be breached. As mentioned, employers cannot deny paternity leave to those eligible and if they do, the individual affected should take action.

If there’s been a misunderstanding or the individual believes the issue is only minor, they could begin by having an informal discussion with their employer. Such conversations can help rectify the problem quickly and avoid the need for stressful court action.

However, if the matter is more serious, it may be more appropriate to file a formal grievance. A formal complaint would eliminate the need for employment tribunal proceedings while imposing additional legal responsibilities on the employer, making it more enforceable than an informal chat.

Should all else fail, the individual could take their employer to court. They would first need to undertake ACAS early conciliation and satisfy specific eligibility criteria, but once fulfilled, they could claim to an employment tribunal.

If you have faced dismissal following paternity leave or have any questions concerning your rights, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law experts, we can listen to your concerns and provide specialist advice to help resolve your problem.

To find out more, simply: