Clyde & Co: Claim dismissed
A leading City law firm’s stated commitment to inclusion and diversity was not always reflected in how it dealt with a law student’s application for a training contract, an employment tribunal has ruled.
It nonetheless dismissed the claims of race discrimination and victimisation brought by Ms A Epelle against Clyde & Co, primarily because her A-Level grades were far below what it expected.
But Judge Snelson, sitting in London, concluded the ruling by saying: “Although the respondents have succeeded in this litigation, we consider that they would do well to learn some important lessons from it.
“Their protestations about their ‘passionate’ commitment to inclusion and diversity do not at all times sit comfortably with our findings concerning their management of the claimant’s applications, certainly in relation to the Bristol and London training contracts.”
Ms Epelle, a Nigerian woman living in Nigeria, applied unsuccessfully for training contracts at three different Clyde & Co offices, in May 2022 (London), May 2023 (Hamburg) and March 2024 (Bristol), all of which were unsuccessful.
She argued that race was a material factor in the decisions to reject her. Her indirect discrimination claim was based on the requirement for the London training contract of a right to permanently live and work in the UK and for in-person attendance at the assessment centre stage of the Bristol selection process, with a £150 cap on travel expenses.
Ms Epelle achieved grades C, D and E at A-Level and a 2:1 in chemical engineering at Leeds University. She passed the graduate diploma in law and achieved a commendation in the legal practice course in 2010.
Clyde & Co expects A-Level grades of at least AAB but candidates who do not achieve this can put forward mitigating circumstances. There is no formal policy on these but evidence indicated that the firm would not go below two grades down.
“It is clear to us that the firm attaches real significance to A-Level results, notwithstanding the fact that these represent milestones passed four or five years before the applications which they are considering,” the tribunal said.
The firm also pointed to evidence of an association between higher UCAS scores and stronger appraisal records of trainees during their training contracts.
The tribunal found that the London recruitment exercise arose in unusual circumstances in early 2022, as the firm decided it needed 10 more trainees than were lined up for September 2022. It specified the need for a right to live and work in the UK because there was not time to arrange sponsorship of working visas.
“Most regrettably, despite several emails asking for information, the claimant was never formally notified of the result of her application. Indeed, it seems that none of her messages was even acknowledged,” Judge Snelson observed.
But he said the visa issue, along with her A-Level grades, justified the decision to find Ms Epelle ineligible.
The grades were also why she was ruled out of the Hamburg exercise for a single trainee.
The Bristol application was for a training contract in the projects and construction team. There was correspondence over whether she could attend the assessment centre part of the process virtually – given the cost of coming from Nigeria – but in any case she was not shortlisted as there were four candidates with better scores.
This disposed of the direct discrimination argument, and the tribunal found the firm was also “justified in insisting on an in-person assessment centre, given the special importance of teamworking and personal dynamics in the projects and construction team”.
Setting the cap on travel reimbursement was “a matter for broad assessment which needs to start from the fact that the firm has no obligation to cover any travel expenses”.
Further, in relation to all three roles, the indirect discrimination argument failed because “there was no prospect of Clyde & Co appointing her given her grades”.
Judge Snelson concluded by highlighting various concerns about how the applications had been handled, including the “at very best remarkably gauche and inept” messages sent to Ms Epelle over the need to attend the assessment centre in person and whether she should withdraw her application as a result.
After being rejected for Bristol, she was encouraged to apply in future competitions, which the judge questioned given that her A-Level grades made her ineligible.
He went on: “It seems to us that thought might also usefully be given to revising the system. In particular, it is not clear to us why time and trouble are spent on scoring candidates before the organisation ascertains whether, having regard to academic attainment and/or availability, they are even theoretically appointable.”
Judge Snelson was critical too of the failure to ensure that information for potential recruits on the firm’s website was “carefully checked and updated for accuracy and clarity” and “the extraordinary failure” to tell Ms Epelle the outcome of her London application.
This “represented another deeply regrettable lapse, for which no explanation has been provided”.
A Clyde & Co spokeswoman said: “We’re pleased the tribunal dismissed all of the claims and are confident that our recruitment processes are fair, inclusive and robust.
“As with all our processes, they are kept under regular review to ensure they remain aligned with best practice.”
Leave a Comment