This case reinforces the importance of fair and transparent performance management, particularly when dealing with employees returning from extended leave. It highlights the risks employers face if they fail to support employees appropriately, and it serves as a reminder that poorly handled performance concerns can quickly escalate into unfair dismissal claims.
Background
Jon Reeves, a Vice-President for Compliance at Goldman Sachs, took six months of paternity leave following the birth of his second child in 2022. Upon returning to work, he faced challenges balancing his responsibilities with childcare commitments. Reeves alleged that the firm was unsupportive of male employees taking extended parental leave, and despite his efforts to adjust, he was dismissed on performance grounds. He claimed that the firm’s justification was a pretext for discrimination and that his dismissal was unfair.
Allegations
- Unfair dismissal – Reeves argued that his termination was not a genuine performance issue, but rather a consequence of his decision to take paternity leave, making the dismissal automatically unfair.
- Sex Discrimination – he claimed that the bank’s treatment of him reflected a broader bias against men taking on primary caregiving roles, amounting to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Tribunal Findings
Employment Tribunal ruled in Reeves’s favour, finding that Goldman Sachs had not followed a fair or objective performance management process. The tribunal highlighted that there was no substantial evidence that Reeves’s performance had genuinely deteriorated, and it noted the firm’s dismissive approach towards male employees taking parental leave.
The tribunal determined that Reeves’s dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory and that his paternity leave had been a factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Compensation details are yet to be finalised.
HR Key Takeaways
This case demonstrates the critical importance of fair and consistent performance management. If an employer is going to dismiss someone on performance grounds, there must be clear evidence of poor performance, alongside documented attempts to provide support, feedback, and an opportunity for improvement.
We must ensure that performance management is applied objectively and consistently across all employees, regardless of their personal circumstances. Managers should be trained to avoid assumptions about an employee’s commitment or capability based on their parental responsibilities.
Additionally, organisations should actively foster a culture that supports employees returning from extended leave, whether for parental reasons or otherwise. Employers should not only have policies in place but also ensure that those policies translate into everyday practice, preventing biases , conscious or unconscious, from influencing employment decisions.
When dismissals happen without a clear, structured process, companies risk more than just a tribunal claim – they risk reputational damage, poor employee morale, and unnecessary legal costs.
What may not hold up in tribunal:
No clear records or relying solely on one manager’s opinion without a documented review process.
Vague feedback such as “the employee is not a good cultural fit”, “they don’t seem as committed since coming back from leave” or “their performance has been poor” without specific data or examples.
Employers need clear, fact-based performance data rather than subjective opinions. Use measurable goals and quantifiable performance indicators (KPIs) to demonstrate underperformance.
Moving the goalposts – if expectations shift midway through a review period, that’s a red flag. Same with setting unrealistic new performance standards post-return from leave. Employees must be judged against consistent, pre-established criteria.
Lack of a fair review process – performance concerns should be raised early and formally rather than being used as a last minute reason for dismissal. ACAS guidelines recommend a 30-90 day performance improvement plan period to allow for measurable improvement. This may be shorter period for those under 2 years of employment or employees unnder probation.
Dismissing without allowing improvement time – employees should be given structured support, training (if applicable) feedback, and a reasonable timeframe to address concerns.
Inconsistent performance management – applying stricter standards to one employee over others in the same role(e.g., penalising a new parent for reduced availability while excusing others). We should audit and understand performance ratings across teams to ensure fairness.
Performance as a pretext – if an employee is dismissed shortly after returning from leave or raising a grievance, or suddenly identifying performance concerns when an employee becomes pregnant or requests flexible working. Managers and HR should keep a clear paper trail to demonstrate the real reason for the decision.
hr, like it's hard? 