They say that a string of recent high-profile sex discrimination cases that has cost companies millions of pounds in damages and out of court settlements were sometimes no more than cynical attempts by female employees to “make a fast buck” before they retire and will force firms to think twice before taking on a woman in the future.

Their protests come as a leading employment lawyer told The Times that he encourages women to “throw in” sexual discrimination claims to grievance procedures to increase the damages.

Ronnie Fox, senior partner at the employment law firm Fox Williams said: “What we say whenever a woman comes to us with a grievance is, ‘Was there an element of sexual discrimination? Why not just throw it in so we can claim more money.’ ”

Now leading City and former City female employers have told The Times that they have become wary of hiring women because of the threat of what they say is unjustified litigation. They also claimed that the “cynical exploitation” of the laws on sexual discrimination was causing widespread resentment among women working in the City, many of whom have spent their careers rising through the ranks unhampered by sexism.

Leading the charge is Ruth Lea, an economist who worked in the City for ten years before becoming head of policy at the Institute of Directors and subsequently Director of the Centre for Policy Studies. “It is the repercussions (of these cases) one worries about,” she said.

“The idea that these women suffer millions of pounds worth of trauma is completely ridiculous. Where there is a genuine discrimination case fair enough, but the stuff we have been seeing lately is very counterproductive.

“Managers are now more reluctant to take women on. I certainly would be.” Ms Lea also accused some women of taking their employers to court “as a retirement policy” and called for a cap on the amount of damages for which a claimant is eligible.

“Instead of thinking ‘I’ve got to prove myself because otherwise I will be discriminated against’, now women think, justifiably, that equality is their right,” she said.

But she said that some women thought that they could exploit their gender for gain. “Taking these cases to court is sheer exploitation based on the fact that discrimination cases have no limits to them. I think that some limitation should be put on them and that there should be some sort of cap. At the moment it is what economists call ‘profit maximising’.”

Ms Lea’s comments were backed by several high-ranking women in the City, including Emma Weir, who worked in the bond market in the 1980s and is one of the City’s most respected headhunters.

Ms Weir has turned down a request to be an expert witness on behalf of four women claiming sexual discrimination beceause she believes that the claims are not justified. “I am not saying that you don’t get the odd guy who behaves irresponsibly but this is one man’s actions, not the firm’s,” she said. “Meanwhile, you have the odd woman who decides she feels aggrieved by a man who commented on her bottom at the office party and wants to make a quick buck before she retires.”

The call for a cap was condemned by Denise Kingsmill, one of Britain’s most respected businesswomen who set up her own City law firm and conducted an extensive review into women’s employment three years ago.

“Of course the amount of compensation is justified,” she said. “The salaries are so good that the damages are bound to be high. I don’t think they should be capped.”

An Equal Opportunities Commission report said yesterday that there was still a 40 per cent pay gap between men and women working in the financial sector.