Case 3201387/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Lawrence v Barclays Execution Services Ltd and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201387/2022
- Decision date
- 5 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Panel members
- Mrs J Land, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs N Lawrence
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Asian Muslim woman employed by the first respondent as a Vice-President, brought complaints arising from her non-promotion to Director, appraisal ratings, grievance handling, and comments made by managers. The tribunal recorded that she was regarded as an excellent performer and had taken on a significant stretch opportunity, but by majority found that the decision not to put her forward for in-role promotion was for reasons unrelated to sex, race, or religion.
The tribunal upheld a sex discrimination complaint about Mr Bell's comments in the 26 January 2022 appraisal follow-up meeting, finding that his comments and criticism were because of sex. It dismissed the remaining direct discrimination complaints, including the race and religion complaints, and dismissed the harassment complaints because the conduct did not satisfy the harassment test and was not related to the protected characteristics.
On victimisation, the tribunal identified protected acts including the claimant's November 2021 conversation and email to Mr Brooke, her ACAS notification, and her 1 March 2022 grievance email. It upheld one allegation concerning Mr Brooke's comment to the appeal manager about the claimant's perceived performance gaps, but dismissed the other victimisation allegations and made no ACAS Code increase or decrease.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal upheld the sex discrimination complaint about Mr Bell's comments in the 26 January 2022 appraisal follow-up meeting, including the 'glory' comment and related criticism. The wider direct discrimination complaint about not putting the claimant forward for in-role promotion failed by majority. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination complaints, including the complaint about not being put forward for in-role promotion, by majority where applicable. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the religion or belief discrimination complaints, including the complaint about not being put forward for in-role promotion, by majority where applicable. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaints. It found that the impugned conduct did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment and, in any event, was not related to the pleaded protected characteristics. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaints. It found that the impugned conduct did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment and, in any event, was not related to the pleaded protected characteristics. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon detriment test
- Nagarajan reason why test
- Hartley related to test
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
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.