City player successfully defends claim, though judge criticises handling of applications
An aspiring lawyer has failed in an employment tribunal claim against Clyde & Co after alleging racial discrimination and victimisation arising from a series of rejected training contract applications.
Legal Cheek previously reported Anne Epelle brought claims against the City outfit after being unsuccessful in applications for training contracts in London, Bristol and Hamburg between 2022 and 2024. She argued that her race was a “material factor” in the decisions not to progress her applications.
Epelle was born and raised in Nigeria and later completed a degree in chemical engineering at Leeds Uni, graduating with a 2:1. She later converted to law, completing the GDL and later undertaking the LPC.
Following a three-day hearing held in October, the employment tribunal dismissed all claims.
In its judgment, the tribunal said the allegations of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation were “not well-founded” and that the claims relating to the London and Hamburg recruitment exercises had in any event been brought outside the relevant time limits.
The tribunal said Epelle had not put forward sufficient evidence to establish a case of discrimination and accepted Clyde & Co’s explanation that it had provided “rational, plausible explanations” for rejecting her applications.
It found that the gap between her A-level results and the firm’s academic requirements meant there was “no realistic prospect” of her securing a TC with the firm, concluding that her applications would therefore be unsuccessful.
Epelle had also pursued claims of indirect discrimination, arguing that aspects of the recruitment process placed overseas candidates at a disadvantage. These included a requirement to attend an in-person assessment centre in Bristol, a £150 cap on reimbursable travel expenses and a requirement for London applicants to have the right to live and work permanently in the UK.
The tribunal rejected those arguments, finding that the relevant criteria were either “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” or did not in practice place Epelle at any disadvantage because she was already “ineligible for appointment” due to her A-Level grades.
Her victimisation claim was likewise dismissed. While the tribunal accepted that Epelle had carried out protected acts by making allegations of discrimination, it found “no evidence that the claimant’s protected acts played any part in the decision”.
Despite dismissing the claims in full, the judge criticised aspects of Clyde & Co’s handling of the applications.
He said the firm’s “passionate” commitment to inclusion and diversity did “not at all times sit comfortably” with its handling of the recruitment process, particularly in relation to the London and Bristol training contracts.
Referring to correspondence sent during the Bristol process, the judge said the “style and tone” of certain emails was “at very best remarkably gauche and inept” and added that he could “well understand why the claimant was offended to find herself apparently being encouraged to abandon her application”.
The tribunal also criticised what it described as the “extraordinary failure” to inform Epelle of the outcome of her London application, calling it “another deeply regrettable lapse” for which no explanation had been provided. It suggested the firm should consider reviewing its recruitment systems.
A Clyde & Co spokesperson said:
“We’re pleased the tribunal dismissed all of the claims and are confident that our recruitment processes are fair, inclusive and robust. As with all our processes, they are kept under regular review to ensure they remain aligned with best practice.”
(
(