Employment Case Law Update October 2023

Read on for our monthly digest for employers on upcoming employment law changes and key, recent employment tribunal cases.

Unfair & wrongful dismissal

Fekete v Citibank

During his seven years as an analyst with Citibank, Mr Fekete travelled to the Netherlands for a business trip in July 2022. Prior to travelling, Mr Fekete had told a colleague he would be taking his partner on the trip.

After returning to the UK, Mr Fekete claimed expenses for the food and beverages he had purchased while overseas. His management questioned Mr Fekete over his claim, inquiring as to whether he had indeed consumed what was reported. According to Citibank’s policy on expenditure recovery, spouse meals are not eligible for reimbursement.

Mr Fekete claimed that he had solely consumed the items and also, that the amounts were “well within my €100 (£86.70) limit” – the firm’s daily cap on expenses.

The matter was forwarded for further investigation by the firm’s ethics department, and Mr Fekete was questioned regarding his expenses claim.

Subsequently, Mr Fekete admitted his partner did join him for the meals in question. This was a breach of Citibank’s expense management policy and could be deemed gross misconduct.

At the disciplinary hearing, Mr Fekete revealed that, as a result of personal difficulties, he had been taking heavy medication throughout the email exchange over the topic, which had an impact on his comments.

He was dismissed for gross misconduct. He brought claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal Judge presiding over the case found in favour of Citibank. Regarding Mr Fekete’s allegation of wrongful termination, the judge acknowledged that although the initial expenditure claim was incorrect, Mr Fekete did not disclose the inaccuracy to the fullest extent when it was initially brought up with him.

It was agreed that Mr Fekete worked for a multinational financial organisation in a trusted position and that he had several chances to correct his error but did not take advantage of them.

The Employment Judge concluded that Mr Fekete’s behaviour was severe enough for Citibank to fire him without cause since it was acceptable for Citibank to demand an honesty pledge from its workers.

“I have accepted that the expense report may have been submitted in error,” the Employment Judge stated in response to Mr. Fekete’s claim of unfair dismissal. The Employment Judge then evaluated whether the decision to dismiss came within the range of reasonable reactions of a reasonable employer. Nonetheless, I am confident that an employer would be justified in responding reasonably if someone were to be fired only for making a false statement.”

Employer takeaways

Employers are advised to make their employees aware of any expectations or requirements placed on them, in a clear and concise manner. Such expectations or requirements should be reasonable. This could include having a policy in place that outlines specific behaviours that may result in disciplinary action as well as issues deemed to be gross misconduct.

Unlawful discrimination

Miss AB v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Miss AB was employed by Kingston Council. She gave her employer eight months’ notice prior to her transition with effect from 1 July 2020.

Throughout her transition, she claimed that her employer had not followed the right procedures and had not upheld its duty of care to her, providing her with no support or assistance.

She brought a direct discrimination claim on the basis of gender reassignment, citing 23 instances of unfavourable treatment  between from 1 July 2020 and 14 December 2021. These included the woman’s name being substituted for her “deadname” on her pension records because it took the council over two years to update her name on those records and nearly as long to update her door pass and name in the staff directory. She was also removed from many roles that she had previously held and her work locker had a sticky note with her new name written on it and her old name crossed off.

According to the Tribunal, AB was the victim of direct sex discrimination by the Council on ten of the alleged instances of less favourable treatment. The other thirteen occurrences were not found to be confirmed.

The panel upheld her claim, finding that the worker’s “deadnaming” constituted “less favourable treatment” and that it had caused her grief.

The council’s policy had not been updated in line with the Equality Act 2010 and specified that harassment of an individual on the grounds of gender reassignment was to be treated as sexual harassment.

The policy was only updated when a new Dignity at Work Policy was brought into force in December 2021, “many years after the legislation changed” the judgment stated.

“While we accept that the Equality Act was in place and therefore the employer was bound to meet its obligations, we find that it had failed to incorporate these legal obligations into its policies,” said Employment Judge Fiona McLaren in her decision. “It had not provided appropriate training to staff. It did not have any policy in place that would assist individuals like the claimant. We are surprised at such an omission by a local authority and we find its policies and practices at the time of the claimant transitioning to have been woefully inadequate with both a failure to provide guidance to staff undergoing transition and to team managers.”

The claimant received £25,423 in compensation, which included £21,000 for emotional distress.

Employer takeaways

In effect, it was the employer’s inaction which amounted to unlawful discrimination.

Employers are advised to provide support to employees who are transitioning, including meet with them to understand their needs and how they can be supported, including specific actions such as updating their name and photographs within the organisation’s systems and records at a suitable time.

Unfair dismissal

Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes

The claimant managed a gym. After being fired, he successfully sued the tribunal on grounds of unjust dismissal, racial discrimination in the processing of his disciplinary and grievance procedures, and automatic and “ordinary” dismissal. The Respondent’s appeals on a number of grounds were only successful in nullifying the racial discrimination findings.

The tribunal examined three of the claimant’s coworkers as comparators in its analysis of the race discrimination case, despite the fact that the claimant’s circumstances didn’t seem to be very similar to theirs. The tribunal sustained the suit, ruling that the disparities in the comparators’ treatment had shifted the burden of proof.

According to the EAT, the tribunal was erroneous in its decision. Despite the fact that the claimants’ comparators’ circumstances appeared to be different from the claimant’s, it had not stated if they were actual comparators.

The EAT provided an example where two individuals of different races go for a job interview. If one of them gets the job and the other does not, that alone would not move the burden of proof; however, if both candidates receive the same score on an evaluation, that could very well change the burden. The ruling also includes a helpful synopsis of the reasons why delay isn’t a grounds for appeal on its own.

Employer takeaways

When determining whether a claimant and an actual comparator differ materially, a tribunal must take these factors into account. The more unlike the circumstances between the comparator and claimant, the less probable it is that the disparity in treatment indicates discrimination.

Need assistance?

If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.

Last updated: 28 September 2023