Claimant v Pareto Law Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Second Respondent's strike-out application dismissed. Tribunal found claimant had pleaded acts of detriment by Second Respondent (termination of secondment and involvement in disciplinary process leading to dismissal) capable of amounting to race discrimination under s.41 EqA. Claim has reasonable prospect of success and will proceed to full hearing.
Claim struck out against Second Respondent only on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant's contract was with First Respondent only, not Second Respondent, so contractual remedy can only lie against First Respondent. Claim remains against First Respondent.
Claim struck out against Second Respondent only on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant's contract was with First Respondent, so remedy for payment issues must be pursued against First Respondent. Claim remains against First Respondent.
Claim struck out against Second Respondent only on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant's contract was with First Respondent, so remedy for holiday pay must be pursued against First Respondent. Claim remains against First Respondent.
Facts
Claimant was employed by First Respondent (recruitment agency) from 31 March 2023 and seconded to Second Respondent (Barclays Bank) as accounts manager from 5 April 2023. On 15 December 2023, while abroad on annual leave, she attempted to login remotely but could not. Her secondment was terminated and she was dismissed by First Respondent on 11 January 2024 for gross misconduct. She successfully appealed the dismissal but was not reinstated and the secondment remained terminated. She brought claims for race discrimination, breach of contract, arrears of pay and holiday pay against both respondents.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing on Second Respondent's strike-out/deposit order application. Tribunal struck out breach of contract, arrears of pay and holiday pay claims against Second Respondent as claimant's contract was with First Respondent only. However, tribunal dismissed strike-out and deposit order applications regarding race discrimination claim, finding claimant had pleaded arguable detriments (termination of secondment and involvement in disciplinary process) capable of amounting to discrimination under s.41 EqA. Claim to proceed despite being potentially one day out of time.
Practical note
A principal (host company) can be liable under s.41 EqA for subjecting a contract worker to detriment, including involvement in terminating a secondment and disciplinary processes, even where they are not the formal employer, and such claims should not be struck out at preliminary stage where facts are in dispute.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305541/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Pareto Law Ltd
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- accounts manager
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No