Case 3203157/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Poojary v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. – London Branch — 2021
- Case reference
- 3203157/2019
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Poojary
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 20 July 2021, Employment Judge Gardiner considered the Respondent's strike-out and deposit-order application. The tribunal struck out the indirect age discrimination complaint because the redundancy cap relied on by the Claimant was never applied to him: on his own case he was not made redundant, so the alleged PCP could not place him at the relevant disadvantage. The order at the top of the judgment also records the indirect race discrimination complaints as struck out, although the reasons section separately discussed the anonymous questionnaire allegation as a point that might otherwise have attracted a deposit order.
The direct race discrimination complaints arising from the first flexible working request and from appraisal feedback were not struck out, but each was made subject to a £250 deposit. The tribunal said there was little evidence from which it could infer race discrimination beyond the Claimant's Indian national origin, and it accepted the Respondent's explanation for refusing the first flexible working request as cogent. By contrast, the direct sex discrimination complaint based on the same flexible working request was allowed to continue without a deposit order because the tribunal noted evidence that a female comparator, SV, may have been granted a more favourable flexible working arrangement.
The constructive dismissal claim was not struck out overall, but the tribunal found little reasonable prospect of showing that the resignation on 29 July 2019 was caused, even in part, by the incidents now relied on. It considered that some earlier incidents, if proved, might cumulatively contribute to a breach of trust and confidence, but the alleged last-straw events were weak and the resignation email focused instead on the absence of a voluntary redundancy policy and the cap on redundancy benefits. Deposits of £250 per complaint were ordered for the constructive dismissal claim and the two direct race discrimination complaints, totalling £750.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination based on a PCP capping discretionary enhanced redundancy payments at 12 months' salary. The tribunal held the PCP was never applied to the Claimant because he was not made redundant, so section 19(2)(c) could not be satisfied and the claim was struck out. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination complaints based on PCPs including an anonymous monthly questionnaire, no voluntary redundancy, promotion to Vice President, publication of the redundancy policy, and the 12-month cap on enhanced redundancy payments. The operative order at the top of the judgment strikes out the indirect race discrimination complaints, although the reasons section separately discussed the questionnaire allegation as a point that might otherwise have attracted a deposit order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint based on refusal of the first flexible working request on 20 September 2018. The tribunal said there was little evidence beyond Indian national origin to infer discrimination; the complaint was not struck out and a £250 deposit was ordered. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint based on negative appraisal feedback in late 2018. The tribunal found no evidence that Indian national origin played any part in the assessment; the complaint was not struck out and a £250 deposit was ordered. | Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 37(1)(a) ET Rules 2013
- Rule 39 ET Rules 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Patel v Lloyds Pharmacy
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Section 19 Equality Act 2010
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd
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.