Ms E Banton, Counsel For v Respondent — 2018

The claimant joined the respondent's Markets Compliance team in November 2012. The tribunal found that the department had long-running internal tensions, that Mr Jooma was the head of the team until July 2015, and that after his departure Mr Niermann treated Mr Whittern as the senior member of the team and the point person/acting head, despite describing the arrangement as informal. It also noted that there were no written records of the internal interviews for the Head of Markets Compliance role.

The tribunal held that Mr Niermann formed a negative view of the claimant and Ms von Pickartz, using the word "divisive", and that gender-stereotyped assumptions were a significant and material factor in his decision-making. On that basis it found direct sex discrimination in treating Mr Whittern as the senior member of the team and appointing him point person/acting head, and in failing fairly to consider the claimant for the Head of Markets Compliance role. It rejected a separate discrimination complaint about the claimant's deputy status because Mr Niermann did not appreciate at the time that she had been designated as deputy.

The tribunal also found maternity discrimination. It held that the claimant was discouraged from attending a quarterly review meeting on 20 May 2016 while on maternity leave, and that substantial elements of her role were transferred to Ms Burch during her absence and remained diminished on her return. It rejected the allegation about temporary loss of IT access during compulsory maternity leave, and it did not accept the complaints about the Eastern and Western Europe Compliance role, finding that the claimant did not apply and that the recruitment process was not shown to be discriminatory or victimising.

The harassment finding was based on repeated denials that Mr Whittern had been elevated. The tribunal found that those denials were related to sex, reflected the same stereotyping, and had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity. It dismissed the victimisation complaint, finding that the grievance outcome reached by Dr James was genuine and not motivated by the claimant's protected acts.

The public interest disclosure claim had been withdrawn shortly before the hearing. The tribunal applied the Equality Act 2010 provisions on direct sex discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, harassment, victimisation, burden of proof, continuing acts and time limits, including the authorities it cited on comparators, inference drawing and harassment. No monetary remedy figure is recorded in this judgment.