Goldman Sachs executive who alleged she was sidelined when she fell pregnant missing out on millions in bonuses reaches out of court settlement with bank over her £1million claim

  • Sonia Pereiro-Mendez sued bank for sexism and maternity discrimination
  • Mother-of-two claimed she filmed male colleagues making sexist remarks
  • Tribunal was dismissed today after the two sides came to a resolution
  • Firm, which has always denied allegations, refused to reveal the settlement

By Steph Cockroft for MailOnline

Published: | Updated:

A top executive at Goldman Sachs who claims she was denied millions in pay and bonuses once she became pregnant has reached an out of court settlement with her former employer over her £1million claim.

Sonia Pereiro-Mendez, who was employed by the investment bank on a £250,000 salary, took the global investment bank to a tribunal over allegations she became sidelined when she announced she was expecting her first child.

The mother-of-two said male colleagues were promoted above her and that she was subjected to sexist comments by some of the firm's top brass.

She has now reached an out of court settlement with her former employer

Goldman Sachs executive Sonia Pereiro-Mendez has reached an out of court settlement with her former employer Goldman Sachs over allegations she was sidelined while pregnant. Pictured: The mother-of-two enters the tribunal with her second child 

The full employment tribunal was due to begin today. But after talks between the two sides, her lawyer said the issues had been 'resolved'.

Richard Leiper said: 'The parties have resolved the issues between them and they ask that the claim be dismissed upon withdrawal.'

The bank has refused to reveal the value of the settlement, commenting: 'We are pleased this matter is resolved.'  The firm had always denied the allegations. 

Formally dismissing the allegations, employment judge Andrew Glennie said: 'The claim is dismissed upon withdrawal. The parties informed the tribunal that they have reached terms of settlement.'

The settlement comes after it was revealed that Ms Pereiro-Mendez had filmed colleagues at the firm allegedly making sexist remarks 'without their knowledge'.

The revelation was made by the bank’s counsel Daniel Stilitz QC, who said: ‘One key point is that... the claimant recorded some of the managers without their knowledge.’  

 Ms Pereiro-Mendez, who joined Goldman Sachs in 2003, had taken her former employer to the tribunal over allegations of sex and maternity discrimination

 Ms Pereiro-Mendez, who joined Goldman Sachs in 2003, had taken her former employer to the tribunal over allegations of sex and maternity discrimination

Ms Pereiro-Mendez, an executive director in distressed investing, which concerns companies in financial difficulties, had taken her former employer to the tribunal over allegations of sex and maternity discrimination.

She has also lodged a claim against three senior bosses – Bryan Mix, the global head of loan trading, Nicholas Pappas, who is European head of distressed trading, and Simon Morris, global head of credit trading. 

Mrs Pereiro-Mendez, who speaks fluent German and Spanish, joined Goldman Sachs in 2003 and moved to London in 2005 after a stint in Frankfurt.

But over a five-year period she claims her income took a hit because bosses ‘felt, given her pregnancy, she was no longer a significant long-term player’.

Mrs Pereiro-Mendez claims men were promoted ahead of her at the bank (pictured) while she was ‘publicly mocked,’ and subjected to ‘gratuitous and implicitly derogatory references to her childcare arrangements'

The bank (pictured on Fleet Street, London) has refused to reveal the value of the settlement, commenting: 'We are pleased this matter is resolved.' The firm has always denied the allegations 

Although her basic salary was £250,000 in January 2010, it had fallen to £192,000 by January 2012, two months after announcing her pregnancy.

She was also entitled to a bonus of about five per cent of the profit she generated. But in 2011 she received £200,000 rather than the £910,000 she claims she was owed.

The following year she was paid £284,000 but says she should have got a further £475,000. By 2014 there was no bonus at all, although she says she should have been given £450,000.

In her claim, she says she took ‘exceptional measures’ to perform her work during maternity leave.

She would attend meetings, on one occasion asking in-laws to look after the child in a car park – enabling her to ‘swiftly breastfeed her baby during breaks’.

Amid her claims, she said male colleagues at the bank were promoted ahead of her and she was ‘mocked’ and subjected to ‘gratuitous derogatory’ comments about her childcare arrangements.  

Most watched News videos