University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs EE-NY-0273
Docket / Court 1:10-cv-06950-AT-JCF ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
On September 16, 2010, three women who were previously employed at Goldman Sachs filed a lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Goldman Sachs engaged in a pattern of gender ... read more >
On September 16, 2010, three women who were previously employed at Goldman Sachs filed a lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Goldman Sachs engaged in a pattern of gender discrimination in violation of state law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, they alleged that the company discriminated against them through its evaluation, compensation, and promotion policies. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of female financial-services employees of Goldman-Sachs who were at the Associate, Vice President, and Managing Director corporate level.

On November 22, 2010, Goldman Sachs filed a motion to stay the claims of one of the three plaintiffs and compel arbitration on the grounds that her claims were subject to an arbitration clause that she signed as part of her employment agreement. The Court (Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV) denied the motion on April 28, 2011, concluding that, "because an arbitration clause may not be enforced if it precludes the vindication of substantive rights, and because a pattern or practice claim under Title VII can only be brought in the context of a class action, [the plaintiff]'s Title VII claim cannot be committed to arbitration . . . ." Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 785 F. Supp. 2d 394, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) rev'd sub nom. Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 710 F.3d 483 (2nd Cir. 2013). However, on March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (before Judge Barrington D. Parker, Judge Reena Raggi, and Gerard E. Lynch) reversed the District Court's ruling. Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 710 F.3d 483, 488 (2nd Cir. 2013). The Second Circuit rejected the view that a preclusion of a pattern-or-practice claim amounts to a deprivation of the plaintiff's substantive rights since "pattern-or-practice simply refers to a method of proof and does not constitute a freestanding cause of action." Id. at 487 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The case is ongoing as of February 20, 2014.

Jordan Rossen - 02/20/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Discrimination-area
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
General
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Goldman, Sachs, and Co.
Plaintiff Description Three women representing a putative class of female financial-services employees of Goldman Sachs who are at the Associate, Vice President, and Managing Director corporate level.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:10-cv-06950-AT-JCF (S.D.N.Y.) 02/18/2014
EE-NY-0273-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/16/2010
EE-NY-0273-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 03/01/2011 (2011 WL 803101) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 04/28/2011 (785 F.Supp.2d 394) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 07/07/2011 (2011 WL 2671813) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Complaint 09/19/2011
EE-NY-0273-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 01/10/2012 (2012 WL 76915) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order 07/17/2012 (877 F.Supp.2d 113) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 09/10/2012 (285 F.R.D. 294) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 03/21/2013 (710 F.3d 483)
EE-NY-0273-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 06/18/2013 (293 F.R.D. 547) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Francis, James C. IV (S.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
EE-NY-0273-0002 | EE-NY-0273-0003 | EE-NY-0273-0004 | EE-NY-0273-0008 | EE-NY-0273-0009 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Lynch, Gerard E. (Second Circuit, S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0010
Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (Second Circuit, S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0010
Raggi, Reena (Second Circuit, E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0010
Sand, Leonard Burke (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-0006 | EE-NY-0273-0007
Torres, Analisa Nadine (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Dermody, Kelly M. (California)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Dugger, Cyrus E (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Geman, Rachel (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Greene, Cara Elizabeth (New York)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Hirose, Mariko (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Klein, Adam T. (New York)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Liu, Jennifer Lin (New York)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Malalis, Carmelyn Pingol (New York)
EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Mollica, Paul William (Illinois)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Shaver, Anne B. (California)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Stocking, Alison M. (California)
EE-NY-0273-0005 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Sussman, Dana (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Swartz, Justin (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Wong, Heather H (California)
EE-NY-0273-0001 | EE-NY-0273-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bartlett, Margaret Elizabeth (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Brice-Brown, Barbara (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Fasman, Zachary D. (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Fullerton, John Francis III (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Han, Suhana S. (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Mollen, Neal D. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Reis, Michael Peter (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Rogers, Theodore Otto Jr. (New York)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Sullivan, Carson H. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Weirich, C. Geoffrey (Georgia)
EE-NY-0273-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -