In a brief dated July 29, the women's lawyers said that Goldman's slicing and dicing of the data "all but guarantees that the results are not statistically significant" because it produces data cells "too small to analyze."
Goldman argues in its court filings that it's wrong to consider pay differences among associates and vice presidents at all, given the range of jobs an associate or vice president could be doing among the company's 140 business units. An associate or vice president could be working on mergers and acquisitions in the health care industry, or trading petroleum futures or structuring financial derivatives, among other assignments, according to Goldman. Thus, the firm argues that pay and promotion assessments should be made by business unit -- not job title.
The plaintiffs don't buy that idea. David L. Yermack, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business hired by the women, said in a report dated Jan. 28, 2014 that no matter what business unit an entry-level associate works in, he or she needs "strong knowledge of financial statement analysis, discount rates and the time value of money, risk measurement, compounding and the like."
At the levels of associate and vice president -- the two job categories the plaintiffs are trying to represent in a class action -- "most staff have a common set of skills," Yermack wrote.
As for the question of whether those associates and vice presidents have the talent to make the cut at an "extreme" Goldman job, one expert for the plaintiffs put it this way in a July 25 report. "Dr. Campion completely ignores the self-selection of the population of women who choose to apply for and work at Goldman Sachs" wrote Wayne Cascio, who holds the Robert H. Reynolds Chair in Global Leadership at the University of Colorado Denver.
In other words, mediocre talent would be smart enough to know better than to pitch for one of Goldman's "extreme" jobs. Even if they were mediocre women.