Goldman Sachs Sued by Former VP Who Claims He Was Fired for Raising Concerns About Anti-Gay Bias
Despite Goldman's publicly stated commitments to diversity, Littleton says the culture at the investment bank remains inhospitable to LGBTQ employees.
June 05, 2019 at 03:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A former Goldman Sachs vice president filed suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday morning, claiming he was terminated from the investment bank in retaliation for raising formal concerns about discrimination he says he faced for being gay.
William Littleton claims he spent eight years with the company, rising to become one of the most visible senior LGBTQ leaders at the bank. Yet despite Goldman's publicly stated commitments to diversity, Littleton said in the complaint that the culture at the investment bank remains inhospitable to LGBTQ employees.
In a statement, Wigdor LLP partner David Gottlieb, who is representing Littleton, said Wall Street, in general, continues to struggle to create an inclusive environment for the LGBTQ community.
“Mr. Littleton's experiences demonstrate that Goldman Sachs in particular has failed to embrace this important responsibility,” Gottlieb said. “We intend to send a message to all businesses in New York, and Goldman in particular, that this type of treatment towards LGBTQ+ employees will not be tolerated.”
According to the complaint, Littleton was continuously promoted with praise from his superiors during his eight years at the bank. His efforts resulted in award-winning industry-recognized work, and placed billions in investment assets under his team's care. Additionally, Littleton says he was a leader inside the company's own internal support network for LGBTQ employees, becoming, according to the complaint, “one of the most proud, active and vocal LGBTQ leaders at Goldman throughout his tenure.”
Despite all this, Littleton claims he was regularly subjected to homophobic statements and behavior from colleagues—and that he felt reporting the incidents would only make things worse.
For example, after he expressed concern to his manager about her decision to share non-final figures and information about a portfolio he worked on to a more senior partner at Goldman Sachs, Littleton claims his manager responded to his concerns by asking, “What's wrong with you? Do you act this way because you're gay?”
In May 2018, at the advice of a mentor at the investment bank, Littleton says he decided to approach Goldman Sachs' employee relations to tell them he felt discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation, was subject to a hostile work environment and was marginalized by the leadership on his team.
Littleton says the ER representative he talked with did little to help him, other than taking his complaints to his superiors, who then denied his allegations. The matter, from ER's perspective, was then closed, according to Littleton.
Littleton claims that, within months, his relationship with his superiors soured. Whereas he'd received substantial praise during evaluations up to that point, both his managers now included “significant unwarranted criticism” in his annual review. At the end of the process, Littleton was told he was being terminated over supposed performance issues that manifested during the previous year. The only issues that manifested, he claims, was “finally having the courage to pursue his complaints of discrimination internally with Goldman's ER.”
In a statement provided by a company spokesman, Goldman Sachs said the investment bank “has a sustained and proven commitment to diversity, and we are proud of the vibrant and diverse LGBTQ community at the firm.”
“We strongly encourage all of our employees to bring their authentic selves to work, because it makes us a better firm,” the company said. “This suit is without merit and we plan to defend ourselves against these baseless claims.”
Littleton's complaint brings six claims against Goldman Sachs under the state and New York City's human rights laws.
Related:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250