Ms J Nyeko v AIG Asset Management (Europe) Limited — 2021

The claimant's direct race discrimination, race harassment, and direct disability discrimination by association complaints were withdrawn during the final hearing and were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal found that on 22 January 2020 the claimant made a protected act when she told Brenda Monaghan that she was concerned about unconscious bias in the GRE team, said the team needed unconscious bias training, and said she wanted to set up an employee resources group to support black employees. The tribunal found that Ms Monaghan, Ms Torsney and Ms Palma understood this as an অভিযোগ of race discrimination.

The tribunal upheld victimisation in relation to two detriments. First, it found that Ms Monaghan's response to the 22 January complaint closed down the discussion, dismissed the claimant's concerns, and amounted to a detriment because of the protected act. Second, it found that the 17 February 2020 meeting about the claimant's late return from Uganda went beyond a neutral investigation meeting: Ms Monaghan and Ms Torsney were found to have accused the claimant of not having been in Uganda at all, and the meeting was held in an antagonistic and aggressive manner. The tribunal rejected the argument that the later amended email removed the detriment. It also found that the FCA-reporting allegation failed on the facts because the respondent had not conducted any process to determine whether to report the claimant to the FCA.

The tribunal held that the victimisation complaints were in time because the 22 January and 17 February incidents formed part of a continuing act extending to the dismissal on 4 March 2020. However, it found that the dismissal itself was not victimisation. Angela Daniel, the dismissing officer, was found to have dismissed the claimant because she concluded that the claimant had been dishonest in claiming pay for the week 10 to 14 February 2020, particularly the claim that she had worked remotely; the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done only 1 day's work in that week and had not proved the rest. The tribunal therefore rejected the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the claimant's conduct in claiming pay for 4 days she was not entitled to receive was sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal.

On wages, the tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction by not paying the claimant for 1 day in the week 10 to 14 February 2020. It accepted that she had done 1 day's work and was entitled to be paid for that day, including because her apprenticeship arrangement contemplated 20% off-the-job training time. No final monetary award was set in the liability judgment, and the tribunal directed that there would be a remedy hearing for 1 day on 14 January 2022.