The judge told the global firm to improve its recruitment processes after what transpired in the case
Global firm Clyde & Co has dodged racial discrimination claims in a case that went before the UK Employment Tribunal – however, it did not escape a reprimand from employment judge Anthony Snelson.
The Law Society Gazette reported that while he dismissed the discrimination and victimisation allegations brought by Anne Epelle, Snelson told the firm to “learn some important lessons” regarding its recruitment processes.
Epelle, a Nigerian woman, brought the accusations after she was thrice rejected for training contracts at Clyde & Co. She claimed that her race was “at least a material factor” in the decisions, according to a snippet of her submission that was published by the Gazette.
She alleged that she had been subject to indirect discrimination because she was required to attend the final stage of the Bristol selection process in person; yet, there was a £150 cap on reimbursable travel expenses for the candidates. She said this discrimination was also evident in the firm’s requirement that one had to reside and work in the UK permanently to secure a London training contract.
Moreover, Epelle was reportedly not formally informed of her status during the recruitment process. Clyde & Co’s early careers manager notified Epelle that she had not provided a UK address and that assessments would be conducted at Bristol. The manager also asked for Epelle’s “motivations specifically for Bristol,” per a statement published by the Gazette.
Epelle requested that she be allowed to join the competition remotely; the manager told Epelle about the travel expense reimbursement cap and inquired as to whether Epelle wanted to remain in consideration for the training contract. Epelle was ultimately among the nine candidates rejected during the screening stage.
In a statement published by the Gazette, Clyde & Co said its decisions were grounded in “rational and plausible” reasoning, such as the discrepancy between Epelle’s grades and the requirements.
Snelson and two other members of a panel concluded at the end of a three-day hearing held in October that Epelle’s allegations were either not well-founded or out of time. They ruled that Epelle’s evidence was insufficient for a case and accepted Clyde & Co’s reasons for rejecting her applications.
Nonetheless, Snelson described the tone and style of the firm’s emails to Epelle as “at very best remarkably gauche and inept.” He said in a statement published by the Gazette that the panel understood “why the claimant was offended to find herself apparently being encouraged to abandon her application.”
He said Clyde & Co did not properly train and oversee its staff on a clear understanding of the firm’s system. He highlighted the firm’s oversight in not informing Epelle that she was out of the running, calling it an “extraordinary failure” in a statement published by the Gazette. Snelson suggested that the firm overhaul its process to prevent sparking false hope in ineligible candidates, noting that Epelle had even been encouraged to apply for future competitions.
While praising the tribunal’s ruling, Clyde & Co’s spokesperson asserted in a statement published by the Gazette that its recruitment processes were “fair, inclusive and robust.”
