Claimant v JP Morgan SE – London Branch
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined that the Claimant's claim for equal pay was not well-founded after a full merits hearing. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the Claimant was performing equal work to her comparator or that any pay disparity was due to sex discrimination.
The tribunal found the complaints of direct sex discrimination were not well-founded on the merits. Additionally, the tribunal determined these complaints were presented out of time and dismissed them on jurisdictional grounds.
The tribunal determined the victimisation complaints were not well-founded on the merits. The tribunal also found these complaints were presented outside the statutory time limit and it had no jurisdiction to consider them.
Facts
Miss Najeeb brought claims against JP Morgan SE's London Branch for equal pay, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation. The case proceeded to a five-day full merits hearing at London Central Employment Tribunal. The Claimant represented herself while the Respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the Claimant's claims. The equal pay and discrimination claims were found to be not well-founded on their merits. The sex discrimination and victimisation complaints additionally failed because they were presented out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants in complex financial services equal pay and discrimination cases face significant challenges, particularly when time limit issues provide an alternative basis for dismissal.
Case details
- Case number
- 2216593/2023
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No