We examine whether men face prejudice for taking extended periods of parental leave and what legal protections are available to them.
In December 2024, an Employment Tribunal decided in favour of a male employee who brought sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against Goldman Sachs after being made redundant following his return from parental leave (Reeves v Goldman Sachs International: 2209024/2022). Was this a one-off case of discrimination or symptomatic of a greater problem men face when taking extended periods of leave for childcare reasons?
Reeves v Goldman Sachs
Mr Reeves was a high-performing employee of Goldman Sachs. He was in the top-quartile of his peers for several years and was earmarked for a promotion to Managing Director. His work routinely involved working long hours, holidays and weekends.
Mr Reeves and his wife had their first child in 2019. During the Covid lockdown in early 2020, the Claimant mentioned to his line management that he struggled to balance his childcare responsibilities with work. He was told “you’re a grown man, you can sort this out”.
Over the August Bank Holiday weekend of 2020, he drove to Cornwall for his first holiday with his wife and young child. An urgent issue arose, and his line manager e-mailed him asking if he was free for a call. Mr Reeves did not pick up the e-mail until the next day (Sunday) whereupon he completed the work. Over the next year or so, he was repeatedly criticised for not responding immediately that day and his commitment was questioned.
In May 2021, Mr Reeves and his wife were expecting another child. Mr Reeves indicated that he wished to take advantage of Goldman Sachs’ generous (contractual) 26-week paid parental leave entitlement, which applied to both men and women.
He was asked to remain in his current role until the commencement of his parental leave in November 2021. Whilst he was on parental leave, two colleagues were appointed as deputy co-heads of a department he headed up.
In January 2022, he was told that his pay would be reduced by 5%, even though he was due an increase. In February 2022, he was told the department was functioning well without him and he would not be returning to his previous role following his parental leave. In May 2022, he was placed “at risk” of redundancy. His redundancy was confirmed in June 2022, and he was never allowed to return from his parental leave.
Mr Reeves brought claims for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal and succeeded in both. In relation to the sex discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that Goldman Sachs treated Mr Reeves less favourably than a hypothetical female employee who took extended leave for childcare reasons under Goldman Sach’s parental leave policy (like Mr Reeves). The comparator could not be a woman who had taken maternity leave because of the special protection that women have on maternity leave. The Tribunal concluded that there was a striking coincidence between the detriments Mr Reeves had suffered and his absence from work on parental leave and did not accept that Goldman Sachs would have treated a hypothetical female comparator in the same unreasonable way.
Employers’ policies – paper vs reality
Some employers have started to introduce generous contractual parental leave policies like Goldman Sachs, which is a really positive step.
However, it still appears to be frowned upon (as shown by the Reeves case) when men take advantage of their entitlements. Mr Reeves was perceived as “lazy”, whereas the Tribunal found a female employee would not have been perceived in the same way. This seems to be rooted in a deep gender stereotype of the man being the breadwinner and the woman being the child-carer.
Alex Lloyd Hunter, co-founder of The Dadshift, who campaign alongside Pregnant Then Screwed for better parental leave for men, said: “Having good paternity leave on paper means nothing if fathers face discrimination for using it.”
Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, commented: “When men take extended parental leave, they can find that they are subjected to similar prejudice and bias that women have experienced for decades.”
Unfortunately, it seems Mr Reeves’ case is not a one-off case of discrimination, but rather symptomatic of the prejudice men experience in the workplace if they wish to take extended leave for childcare reasons.
Issues with the shared parental leave regime
Whilst the right to statutory shared parental leave and pay was introduced in 2015, with the idea that parents should share the care of their child between them, an evaluation by Department for Business & Trade published in June 2023 found that the take up of it was staggeringly low and it was used in less than 2% of births, with most men only taking the 2 weeks of their statutory paternity leave.
The shared parental leave scheme is complex and often misunderstood by employees and employers alike. It also involves a mother having to give up part of her leave and pay, which can be a difficult decision to make. For some parents, it is a financial decision because often employers will not enhance the shared parental leave entitlements (whereas they will for maternity leave).
Some men may feel that even if there is an enhanced shared parental leave entitlement, they may be frowned upon if they take any extended period of leave.
In respect of any periods of statutory parental leave (including paternity, adoption, shared parental or parental leave), men will be protected against dismissal and from suffering a detriment for reasons related to taking of (or seeking to take) the leave. In this case, the leave Mr Reeves took was a contractual entitlement and therefore he could not avail himself of this protection.
Proposed reforms
The new Labour government has committed to reviewing parental leave entitlements.
So far, as part of the Employment Rights Bill, it has only proposed to make statutory unpaid parental leave (which currently has a 1-year service requirement) and statutory paternity leave and pay (which currently has a 26-weeks service requirement) day-one rights for eligible employees.
These changes will not however address the core issue of ensuring that parental leave offers the best support to working families, since statutory paternity leave is only for a maximum of two weeks and there is no requirement on employers to enhance shared parental leave in the same way they enhance maternity leave.
Conclusion
Although it is positive that employers are introducing more generous parental leave policies, there needs to be a shift in employers’ cultures to ensure that men feel they are able to take up these entitlements with employers encouraging and supporting the men who wish to do so. Further, employers need to ensure men are not treated detrimentally for taking extended periods of leave.
Legislative changes which provide for generous paid paternity leave for men will also be key in bringing about a societal shift in how the take up of parental leave by men is perceived.