Case: Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs
1:10-cv-06950 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed Date: Sept. 16, 2010
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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 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 Judges Barrington D. Parker, 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).
On October 15, 2012, the case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Judge Analisa Torres replaced Judge Furman on May 24, 2013.
The parties proceeded to the issue of class certification. Both sides moved to exclude portions of the other's expert testimony for failure to meet the standards in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. In a March 3, 2015 order, Mag. Judge Francis noted that courts disagree on whether to apply Daubert to motions for class certification. While noting that a full investigation into expert qualifications during class certification would be "premature," Mag. Judge Francis concluded that precedent applying Daubert to class certification was "more persuasive." After a review of the challenged experts' methods, Mag. Judge Francis excluded the defendant's matched pairs analysis and report on the financial services industry in general and declared evidence from plaintiff's "rebuttal expert" to be inappropriate so early in the proceedings.
On the same day, Mag. Judge Francis issued a report on plaintiff's motion for certification of a class of female associates and vice presidents who worked in Goldman Sachs' Investment Banking, Investment Management, and/or Securities Divisions in the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, parts (b)(2) (for injunctive relief) and (b)(3) (for damages). Relying on Judge Sand's prior, reluctant ruling in this case that injunctive relief is not available to plaintiffs no longer employed by defendant (877 F. Supp. 2d 113, 121), Mag. Judge Francis recommended that plaintiff's (b)(2) motion be denied. Mag. Judge Francis also advised against certifying under (b)(3) because "countless individualized factors" prevented common claims from predominating in the case. Nevertheless, Mag. Judge Francis remarked that this "is a close case" and hinted that injunctive relief should not have been foreclosed.
Mag. Judge Francis declined plaintiff's invitation to reconsider the report advising against class certification in an August 3, 2015 order. However, Mag. Judge Francis did grant permissive intervention of two additional plaintiffs whose claims "present the same core legal and factual issues" as those of the existing plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on the same day, adding the two intervenors as plaintiffs and removing the plaintiff consigned to arbitration.
On June 6, 2016, Judge Torres denied defendant's appeal of Mag. Judge Francis' order allowing intervention, finding no clear error in Mag. Judge Francis' decision that intervention was timely and non-prejudicial. In addition, Judge Torres declined to treat the motion to intervene as dispositive, which would have triggered a heightened standard of review.
Defendants moved for dismissal of intervenors' claims on the grounds that they, as former employees, did not have standing to obtain an injunction. In an April 12, 2017 opinion, Judge Torres rejected Judge Sand's expansive reading of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes that favored defendant's position. Instead, Judge Torres ruled that former employees may seek injunctive and declaratory relief. In particular, Judge Torres decided that one intervenor had standing because she was employed on the date she intervened, and the other intervenor's claims were not moot because she might be eligible for reinstatement. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended complaint alleging retaliation by defendants as a result of the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the court certified the defendants' interlocutory appeal on the propriety of intervention on June 14, 2017. The Second Circuit denied the petition for leave to appeal on August 29, 2017. The defendants did obtain an order allowing them to file documents with "sensitive business information" relating to salaries under seal on July 28, 2017.
Judge Torres' decision that plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief removed the basis of Mag. Judge Francis' recommendation against class certification. Consequently, Judge Torres re-opened the question of whether (b)(2) class certification would be appropriate in an August 30, 2017 order.
Mag. Judge Francis was replaced by Mag. Judge Lehrburger on October 31, 2017.
In a March 30, 2018 opinion, Judge Torres rejected the parties' objections to Mag. Judge Francis' decisions on expert testimony. Judge Torres deferred judgment on (b)(2) certification due to the delays caused by the numerous conflicting decisions on its applicability thus far in the litigation. In addition, Judge Torres denied (b)(3) certification on plaintiff's claims of a "boy's club" culture since "individualized proof" would "overwhelm" common issues. However, Judge Torres granted (b)(3) certification on plaintiff's other disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. Defendants asked the Second Circuit to review (b)(3) certification, and Mag. Judge Lehrburger denied defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending the appeal in an April 16, 2018 order.
On July 24, 2018, Mag. Judge Lehrburger ordered defendants to produce class contact information "without delay," largely adopting the defendants' wording of the opt-out form.
The Second Circuit dismissed the defendants' appeal of (b)(3) certification as "unwarranted" on September 4, 2018. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court withdrawing their motion for (b)(2) certification. They noted that injunctive relief would be available to a (b)(3) class, expressed concern that the lawsuit had "gone off the tracks" with respect to the class certification issue (defendants had requested en banc review of (b)(3) certification), and expressed a desire to proceed quickly to the merits. In response, the court dismissed all pending motions relating to (b)(2) certification on October 3, 2018.
On April 12, 2019, the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, stay the claims of certain class members, and exclude them from the class. On that same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to void arbitration agreements that were executed after the commencement of this lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' failure to notify class members that signing the agreement would waive their right to continue participating in the suit.
The parties continued to engage in extensive discovery disputes while the motion was pending.
On March 26, 2020, the court granted in part and conditionally granted in part the motion to compel arbitration. Further, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to void the arbitration clauses in agreements executed after the commencement of this lawsuit. As a result of this decision, over 1,000 members of the class had their claims dismissed and were ordered to pursue them in individual arbitration.
On November 25, 2020, defendants moved to modify the class period to end on November 30, 2018. The court denied this motion on December 11, 2020, explaining that Judge Torres’ order was clear and unequivocal and they did not see a reason to deviate from it.
On October 11, 2022, Judge Torres issued an order setting a date for a jury trial to take place on June 5, 2023. On January 3, 2023, this date was moved to June 6, 2023.
The parties announced that they had arrived at an agreement-in-principle on March 28, 2023. On May 8, 2023, the parties jointly moved for approval of a preliminary settlement agreement which would supersede this agreement. Defendants agreed to adjust their business practices for a period of 3 years following the effective settlement date, including hiring an independent firm to do a study on their performance review practices, excluding an assessment of employees’ ‘potential’, and retaining an independent economist to do a pay equity analysis. The preliminary settlement also included a payment of 215 million USD, to be distributed by a settlement administrator to the class. Judge Torres accordingly issued an order to stay proceedings on the case on May 9, 2023.
On May 15, 2023, the court approved the preliminary settlement agreement, with a final hearing approval of the settlement to be scheduled later. Judge Torres issued the final approval of the settlement agreement on November 7, 2023, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for one year after the date. The court also awarded a third of the settlement in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs, about 71 million USD.
This case remains open for the purposes of settlement enforcement throughout the 3-year period. As of December 2024, there has been no activity in this case since the approval of the settlement.
Summary Authors
Jordan Rossen (2/20/2014)
Timothy Leake (12/6/2018)
Hope Brinn (5/13/2020)
Carlos Hurtado-Esteve (12/23/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4348144/parties/chen-oster-v-goldman-sachs-co-llc/
Bartlett, Margaret Elizabeth (New York)
Brice-Brown, Barbara (District of Columbia)
Brown, Barbara B. (New York)
Cassady, Elizabeth A. (District of Columbia)
Chan, Joanna Kai Wai (New York)
Comenencia Ortiz, Valerie D (California)
Dermody, Kelly M. (California)
Glackin, Brendan Patrick (New York)
Greene, Cara Elizabeth (New York)
Lamy, Michelle A. (California)
Levin-Gesundheit, Michael (California)
Malalis, Carmelyn Pingol (New York)
McNerney, Christopher M. (New York)
Moldovan, Jessica A. (New York)
Mollica, Paul William (Illinois)
Quinones, Martin Daniel (California)
Sitaras, Basil Constantine (New York)
Stewart, Melissa Lardo (New York)
Stocking, Alison M. (California)
Bartlett, Margaret Elizabeth (New York)
Brice-Brown, Barbara (District of Columbia)
Cassady, Elizabeth A. (District of Columbia)
Chan, Joanna Kai Wai (New York)
Davidoff, Amanda Flug (District of Columbia)
Fullerton, John Francis III (New York)
Giuffra, Robert Joseph Jr. (New York)
Guaragna, Julia Marie (New York)
Kaltner, Jillian V. (New York)
Mollen, Neal D. (District of Columbia)
Newton, Beth Debora (New York)
Ostrager, Ann-Elizabeth (New York)
Pepperman, Richard C. (New York)
Perlman, Danielle Eva (New York)
Read, Nathaniel P. T. (New York)
Reis, Michael Peter (New York)
Reynard, Andrew Hunter (New York)
Rogers, Theodore Otto Jr. (New York)
Sperling, Robert Y. (New York)
Stewart, Charles Evan (New York)
Sullivan, Carson H. (District of Columbia)
Wagener, William Henry (New York)
Wall, Jeffrey B. (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4348144/chen-oster-v-goldman-sachs-co-llc/
Last updated June 15, 2026, 6:36 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 16, 2010
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
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.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Goldman, Sachs, and Co.
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Other Dockets:
Southern District of New York 1:10-cv-06950
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 11-05229
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 286,000,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Case Summary of Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12963/ (last updated 12/23/2024).