Goldman Women Get Male Peers’ Pay, Promotion Data in Bias Case

A group of female Goldman Sachs & Co. employees is entitled to personnel files and related information for 32 male peers in a suit accusing the investment bank of widespread sex discrimination, a federal court ruled.

The requested discovery may uncover evidence relevant to the class action Cristina Chen-Oster and three other named plaintiffs filed in 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said June 7.

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 court rejected Goldman’s argument that the information sought would only be relevant during the second phase of the bifurcated trial proceedings planned by the court, if that phase is even needed, when the class members would have to show “individualized” proof of their damages.

Goldman is correct that the first phase of the trial will be dedicated to assessing the class’s “generalized proof” of sex discrimination, and whether it supports a finding of classwide liability, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger said.

The bank is also correct that the sort of “comparator” evidence sought by the class during phase one is pertinent to the individual issues that will be determined during phase two, if the case reaches that stage.

But that doesn’t mean such evidence is irrelevant during the first phase, he said.

Statistical evidence is the primary type of generalized proof needed to show class liability, the court said. But anecdotal evidence also often is used in class cases to put the statistical proof in context, it said.

Evidence of how the challenged employment practices “affected comparable male employees may exemplify” any gender-based disparities reflected in the numbers, Lehrburger said. He ordered Goldman to produce personnel files, evaluation, compensation and promotion-related documents for eight male employees similarly situated to each of the four named plaintiffs. Any complaints and disciplinary records also must be provided.

The court noted that the information is being produced only for evidence gathering and that the class still must establish that the 32 men are truly apt comparators under anti-bias law.

It also warned the workers not to use the evidence as a “back door” to try to prove women as a class were victims of a “boy’s club” at Goldman.

“The Court denied class certification premised on boy’s-club allegations because individualized proof” on that claim will overwhelm the common issues needed to tie the class together, Lehrburger said.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Outten & Golden represent the women. Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Hastings represent Goldman.

The case is Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:10-cv-06950, discovery ordered 6/7/19.