Ms S Patel v Deloitte MCS Limited — 2022

Ms S Patel joined Deloitte MCS Limited on 18 March 2019 as a consultant in Deloitte Digital on £40,600, was promoted to senior consultant on 1 September 2020, and transferred to the Net Zero Transformation Team in Monitor on 27 September 2021. The tribunal found that promotion at the respondent was carried out through annual talent reviews, peer calibration and capped promotion numbers, and that internal transfers generally stayed at the existing point in the pay band.

The claimant's complaints arose mainly from interactions with Giulia Airoldi on the Amex GBT project, the gathering and delivery of promotion feedback by Hannah Lewsley, and later feedback given by Ben Combes and Laila Takeh after the March 2022 promotion board did not promote the claimant. The tribunal accepted that there was a clash between the claimant and Ms Airoldi and that some communications were insensitive or could have been handled better, but it found the evidence showed legitimate management activity rather than bullying or micromanagement. It also found that the Brew Dog conversation in September 2021 about the claimant's partner and Mr Combes's wife concerned relationship chat and ancestry rather than flirtation or race.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not find any combination of events that amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, or conduct calculated or likely to destroy the employment relationship. It held that the complaints about pay, project management, feedback and grievance handling either were not made out or had reasonable and proper cause. The respondent's internal grievance outcome on 17 October 2022 later upheld two procedural points, namely that the claimant's feedback could have been shared in advance and that Ms Takeh and Mr Combes could have done more to resolve the issues with Ms Airoldi.

The direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination, harassment related to sex, harassment related to race and equal pay claims were all dismissed. Applying the burden of proof provisions in section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the harassment test in section 26, the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated differently because of sex or race, and it did not regard the project-management or feedback process as harassment. The equal pay allegation failed because the claimant's chosen male comparators were paid less than she was, and no monetary award was made.