Starling Bank ordered to pay over £1 million in compensation by the Employment Tribunal

Starling Bank (“Starling”) was recently ordered to pay an ex-employee, Miss Gulnaz Raja (“Miss Raja”), the sum of £1,145,386.31 as compensation for dismissing her at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Miss Raja commenced employment with Starling on 1 July 2019 as deputy company secretary and was dismissed on 9 March 2020 following a request to speak with her manager about concerns in relation to the Coronavirus. Starling argued that Miss Raja’s dismissal was related to performance concerns. Miss Raja claimed that she had suffered detriment for raising health & safety issues about coming into the office and had been unfavourably treated and dismissed because of an issue linked to her asthma.

It was accepted by the Tribunal that Miss Raja was disabled by reason of the ‘turbulent’ symptoms she suffered because of her asthma, which were exacerbated by multiple factors. Her condition left her susceptible to breathlessness, illness and discomfort and resulted in Miss Raja requiring time off work and adjustments to her working environment. For instance, Miss Raja had suffered from illness caused by over-exposure to air-conditioning in Starling’s office and despite raising concerns about this, nothing was done. She also had to take time off work to attend GP and hospital appointments for her asthma.

Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal found there to be good evidence that Starling’s chief administrative officer and general counsel (the “CAO”) (to whom Miss Raja reported) valued employees working long hours in the office and discouraged requests to work from home, by not acknowledging them. The Tribunal stated, “That attitude seemed to us in these circumstances to align with an attitude of impatience with ill health absence”.

In March 2020, Miss Raja had become “very nervous” about being exposed to Covid-19 and had asked to speak with the CAO to discuss how she could minimise any impact on her health given the increased risks presented by the pandemic. Instead of discussing this situation with Miss Raja, the CAO dismissed Miss Raja and told her that she “was not a Starling person”. The Tribunal determined that the reason the CAO did not consider Miss Raja to be a ‘Starling person’ was because of her ill health absences, her requests to work from home, and her reluctance to work longer hours in the office over and above her contractual hours. The Tribunal held that these issues arose as a result of Miss Raja’s disability and therefore her dismissal was unlawful. In relation to upholding Miss Raja’s claim that she suffered detriment for having taken appropriate steps to protect herself from serious and imminent danger, the Tribunal was satisfied that Starling accelerated Miss Raja’s dismissal because she requested a meeting to discuss her concerns about Covid-19.

In relation to compensation, the Tribunal undertook a detailed assessment to determine what Miss Raja should be awarded. The bulk of the compensation awarded was in relation to Miss Raja’s anticipated future loss on account that the trajectory of her career had been significantly impeded by (i) her dismissal from Starling, (ii) the fact that Miss Raja had recently pivoted from one type of legal career to another in order to work for Starling, and (iii) the fact that Miss Raja was dismissed at the start of the pandemic and the job market was severely depressed for a significant period of time. There was also an award for injury to feelings and an uplift of 12.5% in respect of Starling’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, in respect of which the Tribunal noted that whilst a full 25% Acas uplift would have fairly represented Starling’s failure, it was borne in mind there was some overlap with the injury to feelings award and it had regard to the overall size of the award.

This decision is a stern reminder to employers of the risks associated with not handling disability issues and health and safety concerns in a reasonable and appropriate manner, including the need to have regard to the Acas code irrespective of an employee’s period of employment service. A common issue, which was noted by the Tribunal on multiple occasions in this case, was the lack of contemporaneous notes and minutes (by Starling) of key meetings with and alleged performance issues of Miss Raja. This resulted in the Tribunal preferring Miss Raja’s account of key issues in relation to the claims that were upheld.

Should you require advice in relation steps your company can take to mitigate employment law risks, or any of the matters raised in this blog, please contact Elliot Francis or any other member of the Employment team.

If you aren’t receiving our legal updates directly to your mailbox, please sign up now