Ms A Lacatus v Barclays Execution Services Ltd and others: 3201295/2019 and 3201137/2020

CourtEmployment Tribunal
Judgment Date07 September 2021
Citation3201295/2019 and 3201137/2020
Published date17 September 2021
Case Numbers: 3201295/2019 & 3201137/2020 V
Claimant: Ms Anca Lacatus
Respondents: (1) Barclays Execution Services Limited
(2) James Kinghorn
(3) Avneesh Singh
Heard At: East London Hearing Centre (by Cloud Video
Before: Employment Judge John Crosfill
Members: Ms G Forrest
Dr L Rylah
On: 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 January 3, & 4
February (hearing days) and 5 February & 15 March
2021 (in chambers).
Claimant: Ms I Ruxandu of Counsel (Direct Access and Pro Bono)
Respondent: Ms S Berry of Counsel instructed by Dentons LLP
1. The Claimant’s claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable
adjustments to her hours of work brought pursuant to Section 20,
21 and 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010 succeeds against the First
2. The Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination by the Second
Respondent using the expression ‘birds’ in the workplace and
brought under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeds
as against the First and Second Respondent.
Case Numbers: 3201295/2019 & 3201137/2020 V
3. All the Claimant’s other claims brought under sections 13, 15 20 &
21 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 fail.
4. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal brought under Part X of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is
5. The Claimant’s claims for breach of contract and/or unlawful
deduction from wages fail and are dismissed.
6. The issue of what remedy the Claimant is entitled to because of
these decisions will be decided at a separate remedy hearing.
1. The Respondent is a company that is a part of the Barclays Bank Group
and is a service company providing technology, operations and functional
services across the Barclays’ business. We shall refer to that company as
2. The Claimant worked as an Analyst in Barclays’ Rates Options
Structured Trading Middle Office department (“ROST IB MO”) from 8 June
2016 until her dismissal which took effect from 13 April 2020. She was initially
engaged under a contract between herself and Resource Solutions before
being employed directly the Barclays from 2 January 2018.
3. The Second Respondent, James Kinghorn, was the Claimant’s direct
line manager from the commencement of his employment in October 2017. At
all material times he reported indirectly to the Third Respondent, Avneesh
4. Avneesh Singh has been employed by the Respondent for 15 years. In
2016, although he was not initially one of her line managers, he was involved
in the Claimant’s engagement in the ROST IB MO team (which we shall refer
to as the ROST team unless we need to be more specific). Avneesh Singh later
took on the man agerial responsibility for the ROST team and in that role, he
managed the Claimant’s manager and in turn the Claimant.
5. During the Claimant’s engagement (to use a neutral term) she
experienced increasingly debilitating symptoms of Endometriosis as well as a
deterioration in her mental health. In December 2019 she commenced a period
of sick leave.
6. While the Claimant was on sick leave Barclays announced that it was
making redundancies within the ROST department. The Claimant issued her
first claim at that stage. In that claim the Claimant brough t claims for
Case Numbers: 3201295/2019 & 3201137/2020 V
discrimination, victimisation and harassment relying on the protected
characteristics of disability, race and sex. She has also brought claims for equal
pay where she relies upon James Kinghorn as a comparator. She also includes
a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages.
7. The Claimant was scored against other employees at the same g rade
and was ultimately told that she had been displaced from her role. The
Claimant’s employment ended after a period of displacement leave which
included her notice. She then presented her se cond claim wh ich included a
claim of unfair dismissal but also included further claims under the Equality Act
References to 2 non-parties
8. Prior to the Tribunal hearing evidence Ms Berry drew attention to the
fact that the names of two in dividuals featured frequently in the evidence but,
in the claims that had been permitted t o advance, neither were said to have
committed any unlawful act. One of these individuals was a former team
member with the Claimant. She had been seriously unwell before being made
redundant. Ms Berry was, in our view correctly concerned, that it was not
necessary or desirable for this individual’s health difficulties to be a matter of
public record. We agreed that her identity was not relevant to anything the
Tribunal needed to decide.
9. The second individual had been the Claimant’s first line manager. The
Claimant said that she had b een mistreated by this person who she said had
discriminated against her on the grounds of her nationality. The Claimant had
not included any such claim in her ET1 and was later refused permission to
amend the claim. The Tribunal was not required to ascertain the truth of the
Claimant’s allegations against her line manager but only whether her
complaints about what occurred amounted to protected acts fo r the purposes
of victimisation claims. The Respondent had not sought to call this individual
as a witness. She had left their employment some time before. Ms Berry
suggested that it would be unfair to link this individual’s names to a llegations
where she had no standing in the proceedings, nor was she a relevant witness.
10. In the exercise of our power to limit the evidence we heard to that strictly
necessary to determine the claims we directed, with the consent of the parties,
that references to anything done by these individuals be restricted to referring
to them as ‘Colleague A’ and ‘the Claimant’s First Line Manager’. That is how
they are referred to in these reasons. We do not believe that it was necessary
for the Tribunal to invoke its powers under rule 50 of Schedule 1 of the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations
2013 but, if it were necessary, we consider that the balancing exercise required
by that rule falls decisively in favour of anonymising the names of these two
The hearing
11. In advance of the hearing there had been several case management

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT