Ms A Muka v Barclays Bank UK plc — 2025

The claimant brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation. The Tribunal found that the respondent had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance, including concerns originally raised by her line manager and later considered by other managers. It was not satisfied that the claimant had been told that if she resigned her warning would be overturned, or that managers told her many times to resign if she could not handle the change.

For the direct discrimination and harassment allegations, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment because of sex, and that the conduct relied on was not harassment related to sex. It accepted that the claimant was taken by surprise by the 26 June 2023 meeting and had no opportunity to prepare, but found that the meeting arose from genuine performance concerns and was not related to sex. It also found that the claimant was not selected for in-branch roles because of the Project Compass scoring process and, for the Hammersmith role, because of branch management concerns and the selection of another woman.

For indirect discrimination, the Tribunal found that the claimant was required to work a changing shift pattern but was not required to work from home, although the role could not be fully carried out without some home working. It found that the evidence showed the claimant's specific circumstances but did not establish group disadvantage for women. For victimisation, the Tribunal found that the appeal did not refer to discrimination and that, even if there had been a protected act, there was no evidence that it was the reason for the later treatment alleged.