Cases6009474/2024

Claimant v National Westminster Bank PLC

27 June 2025Before Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal found that Ms Morris did not recognise or remember the claimant's name when reviewing her CV and that the reason for not progressing her application was operational: the respondent wanted someone with proven significant recent experience in implementing Operational Resilience rules in the UK, which the claimant's CV did not sufficiently demonstrate. The claimant did not adduce facts to shift the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010, and even if she had, the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation was accepted.

Facts

The claimant had previously succeeded in a disability discrimination claim against the respondent bank (case 2205821/2020) involving two colleagues. In March 2024, she expressed interest in a new role as Operational Resilience Lead but was not called for interview. The respondent's decision-maker, Ms Morris, had some limited awareness of the previous claim but did not recognise the claimant's name when reviewing her CV. The respondent required recent and substantial UK experience implementing specific operational resilience regulations, which the claimant's CV did not sufficiently demonstrate.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim. It found that Ms Morris did not remember or recognise the claimant's name when reviewing her application and that the genuine reason for not progressing her was operational: the claimant lacked sufficient recent UK-specific regulatory experience. The claimant failed to shift the burden of proof, and the respondent successfully demonstrated a non-discriminatory explanation.

Practical note

A victimisation claim will fail where the decision-maker has only vague awareness of a previous claim and does not recognise the claimant's identity, and where there is clear contemporary evidence of a legitimate operational reason for the adverse treatment.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27Equality Act 2010 s.136

Case details

Case number
6009474/2024
Decision date
27 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Head of Operational Continuity in Resolution
Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No