Sheila Aly, Counsel For v Daniel Stilitz, Queen’s Counsel — 2019

The tribunal found that the Claimant and Comparator 1 had the same job title and the same annual appraisal job descriptions, but that the respondent kept sparse recruitment records and had no objective scoring or proper person specification process. It accepted the Claimant's evidence that she had substantial prime brokerage experience, rejected the respondent's attempt to portray her as a junior hire, and concluded that Comparator 1 was not shown by contemporaneous material to have held a genuinely more senior role at the point of recruitment.

On the equal pay and sex discrimination issues, the tribunal held that the Claimant was doing like work with Comparator 1 and that the pay gap, McLagan coding and bonus differences were not explained by a material factor unrelated to sex. It found that the respondent treated the Claimant as a junior hire and Comparator 1 as a senior hire, that this distinction was not objectively evidenced, and that sex was a significant factor in the lower salary and lower bonuses awarded to the Claimant. It rejected the respondent's explanations based on Comparator 1's alleged seniority, autonomy, prior salary and director-promotion driver as overstated or unsupported.

The tribunal also upheld victimisation. It accepted that the Claimant had made protected acts from about September 2014, and again from March 2017 onwards, by complaining about unequal pay and sex discrimination. It found victimising detriments in the way Mr Pihan and others handled her appraisals, the grievance and appeal process, and bonus decisions, including the hostile mid-year and year-end reviews, the refusal to engage properly with her detailed responses, the 13 December 2017 email saying there would be no further discussion, and the 10 June 2018 holiday handover email. The 2017 year-end appraisal rated the Claimant 6, significantly below expectations, and she received no bonus, while Comparator 1 continued to receive higher ratings and bonuses.

The harassment claim failed. The tribunal treated some allegations, including the witches' hat and the 'hey sexy' allegation, as out of time or not sufficiently connected to sex, and it did not find the remaining incidents sufficient to constitute harassment. The protected disclosure detriment claim also failed; the tribunal held that the pleaded disclosure about gender pay gap publication did not support the detriments alleged and added nothing material beyond the victimisation case. No monetary award is recorded in the supplied reasons.