Case 2204618/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Elimlahi v Metro Bank plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204618/2020
- Decision date
- 2 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Dr V Weerasinghe, Mr P de Chaumont-Rambert
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Elimlahi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Elimlahi was employed by Metro Bank as a Commercial Risk Analyst on a salary of just over £36,000. After interviewing MK, then aged 18, he exchanged LinkedIn and WhatsApp messages with her over 23-24 January 2020. The tribunal found that he led the conversation, moved it into intimate and sexual territory, asked about her underwear, referred to having a word with HR, and gave her unsolicited interview feedback. MK complained to the respondent and later withdrew her application.
The respondent investigated the matter, Ms White concluded there was a case to answer, Ms Connolly dismissed him for gross misconduct, and Mr Broom allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a final written warning. Mr Elimlahi resigned the same day and claimed unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination and age-related harassment. The tribunal held that the appeal decision meant the dismissal by Ms Connolly no longer founded a dismissal complaint, so the unfair dismissal case depended on constructive dismissal arising from the resignation.
On age discrimination, the tribunal rejected most complaints about the fact-finding, grievance handling and disciplinary stages because they did not amount to a detriment or were not caused by age. It accepted that Ms White went beyond her role by appearing to decide guilt, but held that this was not because of age. It also held that age and the age difference between Mr Elimlahi and MK were relevant to Ms Connolly's assessment of the seriousness of the conduct, but any age-based treatment was justified as a proportionate means of preventing sexual harassment. Mr Broom's decision to impose a final written warning was not a detriment.
The age-related harassment claim failed because the tribunal found that questions and comments about the age difference were reasonable and did not satisfy the section 26 test. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract, no denial of grievance redress, and no constructive dismissal. It also held that complaints based on Ms White's and Ms Connolly's acts were out of time and declined to extend time. No remedy was awarded and the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Pursued as constructive dismissal after the appeal reinstated him and he resigned on 2 April 2020; the tribunal found no repudiatory breach, no dismissal and no unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Most complaints about the fact-find, grievance handling and disciplinary process were held to disclose no detriment or no age causation. The only arguable detriment was Ms White overstepping her investigatory role, but that was not because of age. The tribunal said age featured in Ms Connolly's seriousness assessment, but any such treatment was justified as a proportionate means of preventing sexual harassment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Questions and comments about the relative ages of Mr Elimlahi and MK were held reasonable and insufficient to meet the section 26 threshold. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Omilaju last straw
- ACAS Code para 46
- Shamoon detriment
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.