Ms Elisabeth Maugars v DB Group Services (UK) Limited (sued as “Deutsche Bank”) — 2023

Ms Elisabeth Maugars was a Managing Director in Non-Recourse Lending within Deutsche Bank’s Global Lending business. The tribunal found that in 2020 Mr Arjun Nagarkatti decided to merge Non-Recourse Lending with Strategic Lending and UK, so that one managing director role would be eliminated. It accepted the respondent’s case that the decision was driven by cost and revenue considerations, including Global Lending’s cost-income pressure and the effect of the covid-19 pandemic, rather than by age or sex.

The tribunal found that the claimant was properly placed at risk of redundancy on 1 June 2020, was given a consultation meeting on 10 June 2020, and was told that the redundancy was not yet final. It held that she was given an opportunity to respond, that further consultation was offered, and that the respondent reasonably considered the pool for redundancy, including whether to include junior reports or Mr Mitch Matharu. It found those alternatives were reasonably rejected because the junior staff were not comparable and the merged role was to be taken by Mr Matharu.

On redeployment, the tribunal found that both the respondent and the claimant made substantial efforts to find another role, including wider internal and so-called hidden vacancies, and that the notice period was extended to facilitate that search. It concluded that the respondent took reasonable steps to avoid dismissal, but no suitable alternative role was found and the claimant was dismissed on 2 October 2020. The appeal against dismissal was also found to have been conducted fairly.

The age and sex discrimination claims were dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It did not infer that the redundancy decision, pooling, consultation, redeployment efforts, or the appeal were influenced by age or sex. The tribunal also rejected reliance on historical workplace matters and on comments made by others as sufficient to show unlawful discrimination in this case.