A group of
The suit alleges that Goldman’s company-wide policies and practices, including its “360-degree” employee review policy, results in less pay and fewer promotions for female workers ranging from associates to managing directors to partners.
The magistrate judge over-stepped his power when he ruled that the discussion of compensation at trial will be allowed only as it relates to other performance and promotion policies, the plaintiffs said in a July 9 motion for reconsideration.
Judge Torres certified the plaintiffs’ challenge to the compensation system separately from the challenged performance evaluation and promotion systems, the plaintiffs said.
The magistrate’s ruling should be reversed because the class claims can’t be redefined without a formal amendment to Judge Torres’s order, the plaintiffs said.
The named plaintiffs filed suit in September 2010, on behalf of female professionals of Goldman Sachs, alleging the company systematically favors male professionals, and has paid females less than similarly situated males
The complaint alleges that the company’s policies and practices for promoting employees has resulted in the disproportionate promotion of men.
And the company’s performance review system permits unacceptable levels of subjectivity and bias that result in the systematic undervaluation of female employees’ performance, the complaint alleges.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP represents the class.
Paul Hastings LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and DLA Piper US LLP represent Goldman Sachs.
The case is Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., S.D.N.Y., No. 10-cv-06950, motion for reconsideration 7/9/19.
(Removes reference to ruling vacating class certification order. )
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: