- Employers ignore SARs at their peril (McWilliams v Citibank NA)
- Original news
- What are the background facts in this case?
- What was the Employment Tribunal’s (ET) decision in relation to the claim of unfair dismissal?
- To what extent, and in what ways, did the employer’s failure to comply with the claimant’s SAR impact upon the fairness of the dismissal? Did the fact that the request for information was made by way of a SAR, rather than as a more informal request, carry any particular significance?
- Are there any lessons to be learnt by employers who receive a SAR from an employee who is going through a disciplinary process?
- What approach did the employer in this investigation take to evidence that arose from a related FCA investigation, which was potentially relevant to the claimant’s response to the disciplinary charges against her? Did the employment judge consider the employer’s approach to be reasonable?
- Are there any lessons to be learnt by employers as to how they should carry out investigations into allegations of misconduct when there are parallel (or otherwise related) regulatory investigations?
- What approach did the employer take to the fact that the claimant’s line manager had also been dismissed for similar conduct and for enabling his reports to do likewise? Did the employment judge consider the employer’s approach to be reasonable?
- Are there any lessons to be learnt about how employers should deal with an employee’s defence (or mitigation) that the type of conduct for which they are being disciplined was widespread and had been condoned by managers?
Employment analysis: Oliver Isaacs, barrister at 3 Paper Buildings, discusses the importance of McWilliams v Citibank NA and explains the scope of subject access requests (SARs) in the disciplinary process.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial