Goldman Sachs Argues Dukes Ruling

Goldman Sachs struck out in July when it cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility in an attempt to defeat part of a high-profile sex discrimination class action. Luckily, the Supreme Court issued more than one big ruling on class actions in its last term.

Now Goldman's lawyers have cited Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores to try to extinguish the plaintiffs' class discrimination claims altogether. In a 19-page motion based almost entirely on Dukes, Goldman urged a Manhattan federal district court judge to strike class claims brought by three former female employees, asserting that they “mimic” the Dukes plaintiffs' failed class allegations. The Dukes decision “redefined the employment landscape,” Goldman argues, ensuring that the women's claims “cannot survive.”

The suit has been a major legal and public relations headache for Goldman ever since lawyers for the former employees at Outten & Golden and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein filed it. The three named plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former female Goldman Sachs associates, vice presidents, and managing directors. They accuse Goldman of paying men more and promoting them more often than female employees.

But according to Goldman, the plaintiffs' claims suffer from the same exact deficiencies as those in the Dukes case. Most glaringly, the bank's lawyers argue, both the Dukes and Goldman plaintiffs alleged that managers were given too much discretion in personnel matters, which allowed discrimination to run rampant. “Plaintiffs' theory is flawed at its core because, as a matter of law, the theory cannot unite thousands of individual decisions made for myriad reasons into a question common to the class,” Goldman contends in its motion. Moreover, the plaintiffs claims for back pay and front pay along with compensatory and punitive damages are “quintessentially individualized” and barred by Dukes, the bank claims.

Goldman Sachs filed its Dukes-drenched motion just two weeks after it failed to convince Judge Francis to compel arbitration against one of the named plaintiffs, Lisa Parisi. Goldman Sachs had cited the Supreme Court's April decision in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility to argue that its arbitration agreement with Parisi blocked her from bringing a federal lawsuit. But the judge rejected that argument, finding that “to the extent [Parisi] has a substantive right under Title VII to bring a pattern or practice claim rather than an individual disparate impact claim, she would be precluded from enforcing that right by the arbitration clause in her employment contract.”

Nate Redmond is a reporter for The American Lawyer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.

Goldman Sachs struck out in July when it cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility in an attempt to defeat part of a high-profile sex discrimination class action. Luckily, the Supreme Court issued more than one big ruling on class actions in its last term.

Now Goldman's lawyers have cited Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores to try to extinguish the plaintiffs' class discrimination claims altogether. In a 19-page motion based almost entirely on Dukes, Goldman urged a Manhattan federal district court judge to strike class claims brought by three former female employees, asserting that they “mimic” the Dukes plaintiffs' failed class allegations. The Dukes decision “redefined the employment landscape,” Goldman argues, ensuring that the women's claims “cannot survive.”

The suit has been a major legal and public relations headache for Goldman ever since lawyers for the former employees at Outten & Golden and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein filed it. The three named plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former female Goldman Sachs associates, vice presidents, and managing directors. They accuse Goldman of paying men more and promoting them more often than female employees.

But according to Goldman, the plaintiffs' claims suffer from the same exact deficiencies as those in the Dukes case. Most glaringly, the bank's lawyers argue, both the Dukes and Goldman plaintiffs alleged that managers were given too much discretion in personnel matters, which allowed discrimination to run rampant. “Plaintiffs' theory is flawed at its core because, as a matter of law, the theory cannot unite thousands of individual decisions made for myriad reasons into a question common to the class,” Goldman contends in its motion. Moreover, the plaintiffs claims for back pay and front pay along with compensatory and punitive damages are “quintessentially individualized” and barred by Dukes, the bank claims.

Goldman Sachs filed its Dukes-drenched motion just two weeks after it failed to convince Judge Francis to compel arbitration against one of the named plaintiffs, Lisa Parisi. Goldman Sachs had cited the Supreme Court's April decision in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility to argue that its arbitration agreement with Parisi blocked her from bringing a federal lawsuit. But the judge rejected that argument, finding that “to the extent [Parisi] has a substantive right under Title VII to bring a pattern or practice claim rather than an individual disparate impact claim, she would be precluded from enforcing that right by the arbitration clause in her employment contract.”

Nate Redmond is a reporter for The American Lawyer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.