| Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Decided | 31 March 2006 |
| Citation(s) | [2007] ICR 469, [2006] UKEAT 0223_05_3103, [2006] IRLR 437 |
| Transcript(s) | Full transcript from Balii |
Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2007] ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay. It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal.
Stephanie Villalba was the daughter of a former head of Merrill Lynch's France operations, and had many family members working with the company. She too joined as a graduate and by 2002 had become the "Market Executive for Europe". She reported to a Mr Raymundo Yu, who quickly formed the view that Ms Villalba was "not flexible" in taking criticism or advice on board. Late 2002 was a bad time in the markets, and Mr Yu appointed a Mr Ausuf Abbas, who took over some of Ms Villalba's functions. From then, followed some incidents, which the Tribunal found amounted to less than Ms Villalba had alleged. One was an email where Mr Abbas said Ms Villalba was "high maintenance". This was found simply to mean "requiring considerable management time and effort". A second was that on a jet flight between Frankfurt and Milan, Villalba got the last seat, near the drinks cabinet, and was expected to pour drinks for the fellow travellers. She alleged she was being made to feel like a flight attendant, but it was found that anybody who had sat there would have had to do the same.
Feeling isolated, Ms Villalba confided in the Human Resources head Ms Pauline Cahill and made according to the tribunal a "tentative allegation of sex discrimination", that she was not being treated as an equal team member. Ms Cahill (who had heard concerns about Ms Villalba's performance) encouraged Ms Villalba to work constructively, but then went and told others, and by 11 December Mr Abbas had heard that Ms Villalba had alleged sex discrimination. After that their relationship broke down and she complained further to Ms Cahill that Mr Abbas was "micro managing" her, while afterwards Mr Abbas said he tried to avoid her. In January bonuses were awarded, by Mr Yu, and Ms Villalba got the middle-ranking bonus for people who merely "achieved requirements". On 23 January Villalba and Abbas had a fight. Human resources did not do anything, except try to keep them apart. Mr Yu tried to find her a new job, but the one he came up with did not have the same pay or promotion prospects. On 21 Villalba sent a letter suggesting sex discrimination. Villalba rejected the new post, or any that would be outside the UK. On 28 March she was offered some leave while a new post was found, and she replied that she had instructed solicitors. After that she was told she must stay at home and her contract was terminated at the end of July.
Bonuses are 75%-80% of pay at Merrill Lynch, and the tribunal noted there is a culture of secrecy about these figures, but at the same time are perceived as a vital indicator of personal worth to the company. The Tribunal rejected the contention about sex discrimination, but did hold that Villalba's claims of victimisation were well founded, given Cahill's failure to keep Villalba's complaints confidential (see SDA 1975 ss 4(1) and 6(2)(b)).
Elias J rejected the appeal.
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2010) |
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which protected men and women from discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status. The Act concerned employment, training, education, harassment, the provision of goods and services, and the disposal of premises.
Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.
United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.
Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.
The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 were secondary legislation in the United Kingdom, which prohibited employers unreasonably discriminating against employees on grounds of sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, religion or belief and age.
Smith v Gardner Merchant [1998] IRLR 510 is a UK labour law case, concerning the possibility of claiming compensation for discrimination under the gender statutes. It took place before the Employment Equality Regulations 2003 were introduced.
O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.
The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is a public body in Hong Kong responsible for implementing anti-discrimination laws and advocating against discrimination. It was created in 1996 under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance as the city's first public semi-governmental body focused on anti-discrimination.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11 is a UK labour law case concerning the appropriate test for determining who is a comparator.
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
Clay Cross Ltd v Fletcher [1978] 1 WLR 1429 is a UK labour law case concerning sex discrimination, unequal pay, and the limits of justifications for it. It would now fall under the Equality Act 2010 sections 64 to 80.
Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2000] UKHL 50 is a UK labour law case concerning victimisation for alleging rape, and whether the employee could claim this amounted to sex discrimination. It now falls under the Equality Act 2010 section 27.
Jones v University of Manchester [1993] ICR 474 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law, concerning the test for justification of indirect discrimination.
P v S and Cornwall County Council was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which extended the scope of sex equality to discrimination against transsexuals.
Michael Robert Hill is a former British Labour Party politician who served as Member of Parliament for Hartlepool from 2017 until his resignation in 2021.
Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47 is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to equal treatment, wages, and the illegality principle.
Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe is a UK employment and discrimination case brought by Maya Forstater against the Center for Global Development (CGD). The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that gender-critical views are capable of being protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal further clarified that this finding does not mean that people with gender-critical beliefs can express them in a manner that discriminates against trans people.
Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd was a UK employment tribunal court case in 2020 that ruled that non-binary gender and genderfluid identities fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010.
Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd [2019] IRLR 322 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and discrimination.
