Court: District Court, S.D. New York; October 15, 2013; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs in a putative class action against Goldman Sachs allege gender discrimination against female employees, claiming violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. They assert discrimination in compensation, promotion, and performance evaluations, seeking to represent all female financial-services employees at the Associate, Vice President, and Managing Director levels within four divisions: Securities, Investment Banking, Investment Management, and Merchant Banking.
On July 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting an order to compel Goldman Sachs to provide internal complaints related to compensation, promotion, and performance evaluation, including unredacted copies and complaints from female employees outside the putative class. Goldman Sachs opposed this application.
The court, having previously established a protective order for the case and granted earlier motions for discovery, has partially granted and partially denied the plaintiffs’ recent motion. The procedural history includes the filing of an original complaint in September 2010 and an amended complaint in September 2011, with significant pre-certification discovery already allowed. The plaintiffs have narrowed their discovery request to focus on complaints related to unfair treatment by female employees. Disagreement on the scope of this discovery has led to the current motion, with oral arguments held on September 12, 2013.
Parties are entitled to discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to their claims or defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), which defines relevance in a broad manner. Relevant information does not need to be admissible at trial as long as it could reasonably lead to admissible evidence. The burden rests on the requesting party to demonstrate relevance, after which the responding party must justify any limitations on discovery by specifically showing how requests are irrelevant or overly burdensome. Courts can limit discovery that is duplicative or where its burden outweighs its benefits, ensuring proportionality based on case needs and party resources. Employment discrimination cases typically allow for more liberal discovery rules, providing plaintiffs broader access to employer records to support their claims. Discovery restrictions in such cases should be avoided, especially when claims involve organization-wide discrimination patterns rather than isolated incidents.
Plaintiffs are seeking discovery of all internal complaints from putative class members pertaining to compensation, promotion, or performance evaluations, regardless of whether these complaints explicitly allege gender discrimination. They argue that such complaints are relevant as they may reveal a pattern of discrimination that affects female employees, even if those complaints do not mention gender. The plaintiffs express concern that Goldman Sachs has only provided complaints that explicitly cite gender discrimination. In response, Goldman Sachs contends that it has produced all relevant complaints linked to the complainant's gender and opposes the broader request, claiming that many complaints do not relate to gender issues and asserting that the request amounts to an irrelevant fishing expedition into unrelated discrimination claims. Goldman Sachs relies on case law to support its position, arguing that the plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated how non-gender-based complaints are pertinent to their gender discrimination claims. However, the plaintiffs clarify that they are not seeking unrelated complaints (e.g., race or age discrimination) but rather all complaints from female employees regarding issues that may indicate a disparate impact due to gender discrimination. The disagreement centers on whether the complaints are gender-related, rather than on the appropriateness of seeking non-gender-related complaints.
To establish a gender-related complaint in retaliation claims under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer was aware of her complaint and understood it to address conduct prohibited by the statute. Courts assess whether an employer had adequate notice regarding the gender discrimination aspect of an employee’s complaint, without requiring specific terminology. While the absence of keywords like "discrimination" or "gender" may limit the clarity of the complaint, it must still suggest a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. Complaints that include terms related to gender, such as "sex discrimination" or references to gender roles, are clearly categorized as gender-related. However, the necessity of using such terminology is not mandated for retaliation claims or at the discovery phase in disparate treatment cases. In broader discovery contexts, past complaints that may not have explicitly indicated gender discrimination could still be relevant. For example, issues raised by a female executive regarding being assigned secretarial duties, while not directly supporting a retaliation claim, could provide evidence of gender discrimination and meet the relevance standard for discovery. Past rulings underscore that tasks assigned based on gender, or those outside the scope of a position, can substantiate claims of discrimination.
The plaintiffs in the discrimination case have requested all complaints from female employees concerning compensation, promotion, or performance evaluation. However, the request is deemed excessive, as complaints related to personal job dissatisfaction, such as feelings of underpayment, may not indicate disparate treatment or gender discrimination. The court emphasizes that complaints alleging a disparity—specifically when a female employee compares her compensation to that of male colleagues—are relevant and should be disclosed. Such comparisons can provide admissible evidence of gender-related disparity.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek unredacted versions of previously submitted complaints, arguing that the names of complainants and managers are necessary to gather anecdotal evidence for class certification and to counter Goldman Sachs' defenses. Goldman Sachs argues that these names are irrelevant for class certification and that it has already provided names of those who filed with the EEOC, asserting that further disclosure would violate employee privacy.
Plaintiffs in gender discrimination cases can use anecdotal evidence to complement statistical evidence, as established in Teamsters v. United States, where individual testimony enhanced the impact of statistics. Pattern-or-practice claims typically depend on statistical data, supported by anecdotal evidence relevant at both class certification and merits stages, as noted in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Discovery of class member identities is justified when it pertains to class certification issues, such as numerosity, or when it could reveal pertinent information for the case. In this instance, unredacted names are necessary for plaintiffs to contact potential witnesses and gather anecdotal evidence regarding gender discrimination claims, supported by various case law.
The court acknowledges the relevance of these identities, balanced against the burden of production under Rule 26(b). While Goldman Sachs argues that unredacting names could infringe on employee privacy and disrupt internal complaint processes, it does not guarantee confidentiality for employee complaints but assures sensitivity in handling them. Employee privacy interests are recognized, particularly concerning personnel files, yet this interest is not absolute. The court warns that excessive confidentiality could hinder discrimination claims. Goldman Sachs seeks to protect privacy by redacting names from provided files, citing a previous case where names were redacted due to a lack of demonstrated need for that information.
Plaintiffs should not be required to randomly select employees for gender-related grievances, as relevant complaints have already been produced, identifying individuals most likely to provide pertinent information. Privacy concerns raised by Goldman Sachs can be managed through the existing Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement, which anticipated the disclosure of confidential employee information. The order balances the privacy interests of potential class members with the plaintiffs’ discovery needs, entitling them to contact information of those with relevant information related to gender discrimination claims and class certification issues. While disclosure of personnel files may include confidential data, this can be safeguarded by a protective order, which may limit disclosure to plaintiffs’ counsel to further protect employee privacy. The protective order allows sensitive materials to be marked as "Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only," but does not prevent counsel from contacting potential witnesses. The plaintiffs' access to complainants’ information is justified, as it aligns with their discovery rights. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek to compel the discovery of internal complaints from non-putative class members, specifically female employees in non-revenue and revenue-generating divisions, arguing these are essential to demonstrating a culture of gender bias and evaluating Goldman Sachs’ responses to such complaints.
Defendants emphasize their interest in employee privacy and contest the relevance of discovery requests pertaining to complaints outside the plaintiffs' divisions. Relevance in discovery is determined case-by-case, considering the relationship of evidence to the plaintiffs' circumstances and legal theories. Evidence of company-wide discrimination patterns may be pertinent, but courts typically restrict discovery to specific employment departments or units, especially in individual cases lacking claims of widespread discriminatory practices. The district court exercised discretion in limiting discovery to complaints involving the plaintiffs' supervisors and division, rejecting broader requests for all complaints of harassment and discrimination across the company. Courts may allow wider discovery in cases where there’s evidence of company-wide practices or when plaintiffs demonstrate a specific need for broader information. However, in this instance, the burden of gathering complaints from non-revenue divisions outweighs any potential relevance to the plaintiffs' claims, which focus on discrimination in revenue-generating divisions. The plaintiffs failed to show how these complaints relate to their allegations, and evidence suggests that policies and evaluation models in non-revenue divisions differ significantly from those in the divisions relevant to the plaintiffs' cases.
Plaintiffs contend that Goldman Sachs’ 360-degree review policy and quartile ranking system impact female employees across the company, potentially leading to feelings of undervaluation and under-compensation, even among those not in revenue-generating divisions. However, linking these sentiments directly to company-wide discrimination may be challenging, as specific managerial practices unique to non-revenue divisions could also play a role. The court finds that complaints from women in the revenue divisions, even if they are not part of the putative class, are relevant and should be disclosed. Such individuals, including analysts and administrative assistants, can provide insights into the workplace culture and their interactions with class members, which may reflect broader patterns of discrimination. Therefore, Goldman Sachs is ordered to provide all internal complaints related to gender discrimination from female employees in the four revenue-generating divisions, without redacting names and subject to a protective order. The definition of "conceivably related" includes explicit claims of gender discrimination and any issues regarding compensation, promotion, or performance evaluation that compare female employees to their male counterparts. The defense's assertion of work product doctrine immunity for these documents is noted, but the court emphasizes that both explicit and implicit complaints related to gender must be disclosed, including those about sexual harassment and pregnancy, even if not directly related to class claims.
The excerpt addresses confidentiality concerns related to employee grievances at Goldman Sachs. The company aims to protect the privacy of its employees while also ensuring that relevant information is disclosed to litigants with similar complaints. Defense counsel acknowledged that privacy assurances are in place to prevent retaliation against employees, which is prohibited by law. Employees have a recognized privacy interest in their personal information, and personnel files are generally considered confidential.
However, this privacy interest is not absolute. Courts have ruled that excessive confidentiality could hinder the discovery process in discrimination cases. Goldman Sachs seeks to balance these interests by redacting sensitive information, such as employee names, from the documents provided to plaintiffs. The court previously allowed redaction in a similar case, citing the lack of demonstrated need for the information by the plaintiffs and the fact that the defendants had already provided substantial employee data to the EEOC.
The court emphasized that plaintiffs should not face the burden of randomly selecting employees for information, as relevant complaints have already been identified, and those named in the complaints are most likely to have pertinent information. Existing protective orders and confidentiality agreements are deemed sufficient to manage privacy concerns while allowing the plaintiffs access to discoverable information. It is noted that disclosure of personnel files is typically subject to such protective orders, and any unredacted information can be restricted to plaintiffs' counsel to further safeguard employee privacy.
The protective order allows parties to designate sensitive materials containing private employee information as “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” but this does not prevent counsel from contacting potential witnesses or class members. Plaintiffs should have equal access to potential witnesses as Goldman Sachs. The protective order adequately addresses privacy concerns and favors disclosure of complaints where names of complainants and employees are unredacted.
Plaintiffs seek discovery of internal complaints from employees outside the putative class, specifically from two groups: female associates, vice presidents, and managing directors in non-revenue divisions, and female employees in revenue-generating divisions who are not in leadership roles. These complaints are argued to be vital for demonstrating a culture of gender bias at Goldman Sachs and assessing its response to gender-related complaints.
Defendants argue for employee privacy and claim the request exceeds relevant discovery scope. The relevance of complaints outside the plaintiffs’ divisions is fact-dependent, and evidence of company-wide discrimination patterns may be relevant. However, courts typically limit discovery to the specific employment department or unit of the plaintiffs. Previous cases have supported limiting broad discovery requests to complaints from employees within the plaintiffs' division, indicating that Title VII discovery can be confined to similarly situated employees.
Limitation on discovery is often applied when a plaintiff does not assert a company-wide discriminatory pattern or when allegations are confined to a specific employment unit. Courts have differentiated between cases based on the nature of the allegations. For instance, in Sinni, the court restricted discovery to a specific retaliation instance, while in Jhirad, broader discovery was permitted due to involvement of individuals beyond the plaintiff's direct supervisors. Similarly, in Hollander, company-wide discovery was allowed when a pattern of discrimination was alleged.
Broader discovery may be justified if there's evidence of uniform hiring or firing practices applicable across the organization or if the requested information is particularly relevant. However, in the current case, the potential burden of uncovering complaints from non-revenue divisions outweighs the minimal chance of finding relevant evidence. The plaintiffs have not shown how these complaints relate to their claims of discrimination affecting women in revenue-generating divisions, as the non-revenue division complaints do not contribute meaningfully to the statistical analysis of the alleged pattern or practice.
Goldman Sachs argues that compensation and evaluation systems differ significantly between divisions, complicating the plaintiffs' claims. Although the plaintiffs suggest that the company's review and ranking systems could impact female employees across divisions, it remains uncertain whether complaints from non-revenue divisions truly reflect discrimination arising from these systems or are instead influenced by unique managerial practices within those divisions.
Conversely, complaints from women within the revenue-generating divisions who are not part of the proposed class may be relevant and thus warrant disclosure, as their experiences are more closely tied to the plaintiffs’ allegations due to their proximity to the putative class members.
Employees may provide relevant anecdotes and insights regarding their experiences with management, the internal complaint process, and the workplace culture, particularly concerning gender-related issues. Some employees initially voiced concerns while in analyst positions before advancing to roles as associates or vice presidents. Although not part of the putative class, these employees may have experienced the negative effects of discrimination patterns affecting their colleagues. Such complaints are likely to yield additional evidence for the claims of the putative class.
Goldman Sachs is ordered to disclose all internal complaints related to gender discrimination from female employees in four specific divisions, regardless of whether the complainants are part of the class. "Conceivably related" includes any complaints explicitly mentioning gender discrimination and those related to compensation, promotion, or performance evaluations involving comparisons to male colleagues. All disclosures will proceed under a protective order without redacting names.
Defense counsel claimed that these complaints are protected under the work product doctrine, but the court indicated that complaints suggesting gender-related issues are discoverable, including those that do not explicitly mention gender. The court noted that some complaints, like those related to sexual harassment or pregnancy, have already been provided, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality to prevent retaliation.
