Employment Law - Unfair Dismissal - Race Discrimination - Foreign Employer

A City banker launched a race discrimination claimsufficient to mean that the burden of proof should
against Dresdner Kleinwort ("DrK"). He alleged that hepass over to the bank. With regards to this case, it
was treated less favourably whilst at work, and washas been speculated that there will be a great deal of
eventually made redundant because he was neitherevidence in the case as to the culture of the bank
German nor a German speaker.generally. This would attempt to demonstrate that
The unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim couldGerman nationals were treated more favourably than
be worth close to £10m in the event of itsnon-German nationals. If such circumstances can be
success. The employee in this case, Malcolm Perry,proven, then the claim is likely to succeed on the
was born in Australia. He was a former global head ofground of direct discrimination. It is also interesting to
fixed income and credit at DrK. During the hearing henote that the defence of justification is not available
told an employment tribunal that he becamein direct race discrimination cases.
increasingly concerned about being excluded fromA precedent relevant to this case involved the
key decision-making after the bank decided to mergeLondon office of a Japanese company called Quick
its corporate and investment banking businesses inCorporation which provided online financial information
late 2005. Perry told the tribunal that:from international capital and financial markets. The
"... There was a general feeling that the hiddenoffice was staffed by a mixture of locally recruited
objective was the creation of a niche Germanemployees and employees from Japan. The local
investment bank servicing Dresdner's Germanemployees were made redundant and the Japanese
corporate clients to the detriment of [its] internationalemployees were retained. In those circumstances the
franchise... This left non-German and non-Germanclaims for unfair dismissal and direct racial
speaking employees based outside Frankfurt and notdiscrimination succeeded.
aligned to the German business nervous about theThis could mean that in this case the claim of less
outcome of [the new CEO's] restructuring plans".favourable treatment on the ground that he was not
In his witness statement, Perry said that the bank'sa German speaker would be more difficult to prove
capital market committee had comprised 14as a direct discrimination claim. It is also interesting to
executives at the time of [the new CEO's] arrival,note that tribunals have held that English-speaking
five of whom were German as well as nineWelsh people do not constitute their own ethnic
non-German or non-German speaking employees.group. However, another tribunal found that where
Perry was made redundant in June 2006. He was toldan English job applicant was refused employment
that he was no longer required in his existing role andbecause of an inability to speak Welsh, the claim for
was not going to be given a key position in theindirect discrimination succeeded because fewer of
bank's new structure.the English ethnic group than those of the Welsh
Subsequently, he is suing DrK for both unfair dismissalethnic group could comply with this requirement.
and race discrimination. The bank has admitted theIn this case, the bank could argue that Malcolm Perry
unfair dismissal element but denies the discriminationhas raised a discrimination claim only to try and
charge. In theory, since 2003 it has become easierrecover his alleged losses. In an ordinary unfair
for claimants to prove discrimination on the groundsdismissal claim, the maximum compensatory award
of race or ethnic origin. This eventuality is due to thethat a tribunal may make is £60,600 or
fact that the Race Relations Act 1976 was amended£58,400 if the dismissal occurred prior to the
to bring in regulations concerned with the reversal of1st of February 2007. There is no limit to damages
the burden of proof. Commentators on this matterpayable for claims concerning discrimination.
have said:If you require further information please contact us
"Nowadays, all a claimant has to do is to establishat or Visit
facts which could amount to discrimination. The© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does
burden then transfers to the employer to prove thatnot provide a comprehensive or complete statement
discrimination had no part to play in his actions".of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it
This means that if Malcolm Perry can point to aconstitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight
comparable employee who was not made redundantgeneral issues. Specialist legal advice should always be
but who happened to be German, that fact would besought in relation to particular circumstances.