Claimant v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd

Claim one allegation one: rejection for head of transformation role in March 2021 dismissed as out of time. On merits, claimant failed to demonstrate he was best candidate; lacked relevant experience. No facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Respondent established reason: claimant unsuitable for role.

Claim one allegation two: rejection for head of strategy role in March 2021 dismissed as out of time. On merits, same reasoning as allegation one. Claimant's application was poor, lacked detail, and failed to demonstrate suitability. No evidence of discrimination.

Claim one allegation three: rejection by external agency for head of customer experience role in May/June 2022 dismissed as out of time. On merits, claimant's application lacked depth of experience compared to other applicants. No facts to support burden shift. Reason established: poor application.

Claim one allegation four: rejection for head of products role in April 2022 dismissed as out of time. Application was five weeks late. On merits, external agency assessed claimant's CV as lacking clarity and relevant experience. No discrimination found.

Claim one allegation five: failure to give greater salary increase in April 2023 dismissed as out of time. On merits, claimant received pay rise in accordance with policy applied to all employees. No discretion existed for greater increase. No less favourable treatment, no discrimination.

Claim one allegation six: alleged failure by Mr McRobert to respond to emails August 2022 to May 2023 dismissed as out of time. On merits, claim failed factually: Mr McRobert responded to all emails either in writing or in discussion. No discrimination.

Claim one allegation seven: alleged failure to complete performance review by March 2023 dismissed as out of time. On merits, claim failed factually: no requirement to complete quarterly reviews. Claimant treated same as others. No less favourable treatment, no discrimination.

Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after exposing his genitals on a Teams call on 8 May 2023. Tribunal found: (1) Respondent had genuine belief in misconduct supported by video evidence; (2) Investigation was reasonable; (3) Dismissal was within band of reasonable responses given lack of remorse, deletion of evidence, inconsistent explanations, and breach of trust. Dismissal was fair.

Claim two allegation eight: alleged breaches of ACAS guidelines (non-disclosure of complainant, non-provision of video, failure to speak to all witnesses). Tribunal found no less favourable treatment. Respondent followed normal procedures. Video provided when requested. No facts supporting discrimination.

Claim two allegation nine: holding disciplinary meetings when claimant was sick. Tribunal found respondent adjourned hearing eight times. Ultimately proceeded when no formal fit note submitted. Approach was reasonable. No facts supporting race discrimination.

Claim two allegation ten: alleged requirement to work on public holiday (8 May 2023). Tribunal found claim failed factually: claimant chose to work that day, was not required to. No less favourable treatment, no discrimination.

Claim two allegation eleven: dismissal on 30 January 2024. Tribunal found no facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Respondent established reason: conduct (exposure on Teams call), lack of remorse, deletion of evidence, inconsistent explanations. Dismissal not because of race.

Wrongful dismissal claim failed. Tribunal found claimant in fundamental breach of contract by deliberately choosing to be naked from waist down on work call, creating obvious risk of exposure. Respondent entitled to summarily dismiss. Claimant not entitled to notice pay.