A handout photograph distributed by Syria's national news agency SANA on May 22,2013, show detained men, blindfolded and handcuffed, described by SANA as "terrorists fighters", a term commonly used to describe rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, in Qusair, near Homs.    SANA/Handout via Reuters

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more 

Photo

Devastated by Tornado

A huge tornado tears through an Oklahoma City suburb.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Ex-VP sues Goldman over "mommy track"

Related Topics

Flags fly outside of the Goldman Sachs headquarters building in the financial district of New York January 21, 2010. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

Flags fly outside of the Goldman Sachs headquarters building in the financial district of New York January 21, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

NEW YORK | Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:14pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc was sued for alleged bias by a former vice president, who said the Wall Street bank consigned her to a "mommy track" that led to her firing while she was on maternity leave.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court by Charlotte Hanna, who said she worked at Goldman Sachs University, an orientation program for new analysts, associates and summer interns.

Hanna, a Manhattan resident, alleged that after her 2005 return from her first maternity leave, Goldman demoted her and made her feel unwelcome in what had become a "boys-only" club.

She said she was fired in February 2009, a week before she was to return from a second maternity leave.

"When Ms. Hanna decided to take the 'off-ramp' provided by the firm to devote time to her children, there was no 'on-ramp' that enabled her to return to full-time employment," the complaint said. "Essentially, the 'off-ramp' was a direct path to a mommy-track that ultimately derailed Ms. Hanna's career."

Goldman spokeswoman Gia Morone declined to comment.

Major U.S. investment banks are regularly targets of lawsuits by former workers who allege some form of discrimination. Hanna's age was not immediately available.

According to the complaint, Hanna joined Goldman in 1998 as an associate, was promoted to vice president two years later, and received strong praise for her work.

It said she took advantage of a Goldman program letting her work part-time upon returning from her first maternity leave in February 2005.

Upon her return, Hanna allegedly hit a "glass ceiling" with respect to pay and advancement, was demoted, and was systematically excluded from operations and social functions.

The complaint said 75 percent of those "selected for termination" in her group had recently taken maternity leave.

"It is clear that Goldman Sachs views working mothers as second-class citizens who should be at home with their children," the complaint said.

Hanna's lawyer is Douglas Wigdor, a partner at Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP. He said he also represents five women suing Citigroup Inc for alleged discrimination.

"We have seen more gender and pregnancy discrimination cases since the economy began its downturn," Wigdor said.

"I attribute it to the fact that managers are typically men who have unfettered discretion about who to terminate," he went on. "They perceive that working mothers may not work as hard as men, and may not be with the firm as long so they can be with their children. That can make women seem more expendable."

The case is Hanna v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-02637.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Gary Hill)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (14)
I am the owner of a midsized business that is in a proffesional office setting. I don’t all of the facts of this case, however I do know that when work is slow and we are looking at letting people go, we look at the following things:
1. Who is the most or least productive
2. Who is the most / least expensive to have on board
3. Who is the workoholic
I am sorry, but in the real world those who are workaholics deserve to keep their jobs over someone who is a part timer. I have no problem with a temporary maternity leave and I truly am a family man and believe family should come first in life. But this is about choices. Some choose to devote their life to their work, some choose to devote their life to other things. In an ideal world we would have enough work for everyone, however folks like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama ruining… excuse me, I meant running… the country then jobs are scarce. The workoholics are going to be the last remaining.

Mar 24, 2010 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NatalieDu wrote:
While I don’t agree with your little quip about Dems running the country, I do have to agree with you about employees. Why should someone who has devoted only 1/2 time in the last 4-5 years feel that they deserve to be promoted based on the work they did 5 years ago. People work hard to get promoted. Mothers who CHOOSE to stay home and/or work part-time for years (especially 4 or 5 of them) should expect to basically start from scratch, proving their hard work, etc. when they go back to a fulltime career. Yes, it isn’t fair that the onus usually falls on women if the couple wants a family, but some women don’t choose to do what this one did. They take maybe 6 weeks and RETURN to work full time. If that was what this woman had done, and she felt like she was being “mommy-tracked”, THEN she might have a case.

Mar 24, 2010 4:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jedwards11968 wrote:
These comments are ridiculous.

A woman should not be promoted because she chooses to have a baby? Basically, woman should stay at home pregnant in the kitchen while the man goes to work and brings home the bacon.

If Goldman Sachs didn’t want women to take advantage of this part-time program, they didn’t need to offer it. If the program came with the caveat that if they take it, they would be looked upon unfavorably, then maybe the woman wouldn’t have taken it. But if Goldman offered it, they shouldn’t penalize a woman for doing so.

Mar 24, 2010 5:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.