A female Barclays bank executive was discriminated against when her male boss assumed she didn’t want a promotion so she could look after her family instead.
A tribunal has ruled that Nazia Lawrence was ‘stereotyped’ by Mark Bell when he told her he thought she was ‘happy’ to remain as a vice president at the finance giant.
The employment tribunal heard that Mrs Lawrence had recently told managers that due to family pressures she was not able to prioritise advancement at work.
However, by assuming that meant she had no further interest in promotion, her boss had sexually discriminated against her, making a remark that would have not been made to a man, the panel concluded.
Praising Mrs Lawrence for her ‘great courage’ in bringing the case, Employment Judge Sarah Moor said: ‘Mr Bell’s comment to her…reveals he had assumed that the cause of her temporary lack of priority (family pressures) meant she had lost her desire totally for promotion.
‘This is a significant leap, a large assumption to make. We consider that had she been a high-performing man (with similar temporary family pressures) he would not have made that assumption or stated… that he was happy to stay as VP.
‘We judge that Mr Bell has applied to [Mrs Lawrence] the stereotype of the female carer – the assumption that women take on family care and lose the desire for advancement at work because of home pressures.
‘He has, in that one comment, brushed to one side the palpable and longstanding evidence of [Mrs Lawrence’s] obvious appetite for work and progression.
‘There is a clear distinction to be made here between the family pressures and caring [she] talked about that meant a temporary loss of priority to a total loss of desire for progression.
‘We infer Mr Bell simply would not have lost sight of that distinction had [Mrs Lawrence] been a man to whom the stereotype of family carer would not have applied.
‘We find that by stating to [her] that she was happy to remain as VP he subjected [her] to a detriment because of sex and unlawfully discriminated against her.’
The tribunal in East London heard that Mrs Lawrence had worked at Barclays Execution Services as a Vice President since 2015 and was a Global Tax Operations Risk and Control Officer.
She was regarded as an ‘excellent performer’ and identified within the bank as having ‘high potential’, the hearing was told.
However, she was told that at the time there was no chance of promotion in London due to a cost cutting policy to avoid creating new posts in high cost locations.
‘Over the course of 2021, [Mrs Lawrence] clearly had some significant personal family issues involving the health of close family members and requiring changes in her personal life which will have placed an extra burden upon her at that time,’ the tribunal heard.
‘She described these in detail to her managers.’
As a result, Mrs Lawrence said that she could not ‘focus on or prioritise going for promotion at that time because of the pressing personal issues she was dealing with’.
‘This meant looking and applying for vacancies,’ the tribunal heard. ‘It did not relate to her desire for promotion.
‘[She] had not said that she “no longer” wished to try for promotion – this would have made no sense.
‘Her comment…was purely temporary bearing in mind the personal pressures on her at the time and was not about no longer pushing but simply a matter of priority.’
In November 2021 Mrs Lawrence – who describes herself as Asian Muslim – was left feeling ‘betrayed’ after learning that a male colleague had obtained an in-role promotion to director in London.
She complained to her bosses that she had not been given ‘equal opportunities’ and that there was one rule for one ‘set’ of people and another for another.
In January 2022 Mrs Lawrence launched a grievance over her treatment, having claimed to be the victim of ‘discrimination, injustice, inequality and favouritism’.
Later that month she met Mr Bell for an appraisal meeting in which he accused her of being unwilling to take feedback and said she ‘just wanted the glory for good work’.
He was also found by the tribunal to have said ‘words to the effect that he understood she was happy to remain a VP’.
Mrs Lawrence went off sick the following month and launched tribunal proceedings against Barclays in April claiming race, sex and religion discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Her complaint that she had been discriminated against by being denied promotion was supported by one member of the tribunal panel.
However, it was dismissed by the majority which found that her colleague had been appointed as director on the basis of his ‘plainly consistently outstanding performance’.
Her claim regarding the ‘happy to remain as VP’ comment was upheld.
The tribunal ruled: ‘While [Mrs Lawrence] had said her de-prioritising of promotion temporarily was for family caring reasons, this had become in the manager’s heads “no longer desiring promotion”.
‘This difference is not mere semantics or emphasis. It turns [her] from an ambitious, promotion-seeking individual with high potential to a colleague who is just happy to remain a VP.
‘We find this change to have been based on assumptions about caring responsibilities taking over, subsuming the female carer for the long term.
‘We do not consider the managers would have reached this view if Mrs Lawrence had been a man who had just had family issues for a period. The stereotype of women caring for family members for the long term just doesn’t apply to men.’
Praising Mrs Lawrence for taking her employer to the tribunal, Judge Moor said: ‘It was reasonable for her to point to [her colleague’s] promotion and ask, given her very good record and the stretch opportunity which had expanded her role, why promotion had not happened for her.
‘We consider that she has shown great courage in testing that question at the Tribunal.’