Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nmeli  Nnoromele

Tiktok Technology Limited

Representatives

Mary Fay BL instructed by A&L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00057687-001

13/07/2023

The Complainant worked for the Respondent social media company as a Human Resource Business Partner (“HRBP”). In March 2022 she was promoted to lead a team of HRBPs covering a number of functions within the Respondent’s business.

Upon her promotion she began reporting to a new manager, who for the purposes of this decision I have identified as the Manager. The Complainant alleges that her Manager discriminated against her on the grounds of her race. Her Manager is Indian and the Complainant was the only black woman on the team of four senior HRBPs who reported into him.

The Complainant submitted her resignation January 2023 and notified the Respondent of her allegations in March 2023, her employment ended in April 2023 following a period of gardening leave.

The Respondent denies any allegation of discrimination and submits that it undertook a detailed investigation following the Complainant having made these allegations and did not uphold her complaints.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. She submitted a detailed statement and written documentation beforehand.

The Respondent made detailed submissions.

Mr Sufiyan Sulaiman, Ms Fiona Briggs and Mr Tyler Elmendorf all gave evidence under affirmation.

Time Limits

Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act provides that:

(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

There is no request for me to extend the time limits outlined above and there would seem to be no reasonable cause providing for such an extension.

The Labour Court, in County Cork VEC v. Hurley EDA1124, determined that section 77(5) provides for a situation in which a series of separate acts or omissions on the part of the employer are sufficiently connected so as to constitute a continuum of discrimination. That is where there are separate instances of the same discrimination. In order for the Complainant to succeed in demonstrating a continuum of discrimination, she must demonstrate that there were acts of discrimination within a period of 6 months prior to the lodgement of the Complaint which were sufficiently linked to the other alleged acts of discrimination.

Findings following the 13th of January 2023.

The Complainant worked on a team of four senior HRBPs who all reported into the same Manager.

She alleges that she suffered a series of microaggressions perpetrated by her Manager and that on a number of occasions he was overtly aggressive towards her. She points out that she was the only black woman on the team and her three colleagues were treated very differently. She draws the inference that she was treated differently and less favourably due to her race.

The Complainant was promoted into her role in March 2022 and in particular she refers to meetings in October and November 2022.

The Complainant submitted her complaint form on the 13th of July 2023. Applying the above time limits and case law I must first determine whether there are acts of discrimination which occurred within the above cognisable period and if so I may then establish whether they form part of a continuum with the other alleged acts.

The Complainant resigned on the 6th of January 2023, which was before the cognisable period. She was clear in the hearing that she was not pursuing a claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal and her own evidence would seem to point to there being a number of factors which resulted in her resignation.

The Complainant submitted her resignation by way of email to her Manager. She outlined that she had caught an illness that had commingling effects which health issues which she had become aware of over the previous year. On reflection she felt she had failed to prioritise her health and needed to resign. While not disclosed to her employer the Complainant’s evidence was that she was suffering significant workplace stress at the time.

The Complainant met with her immediate team and their Manager on the 16th of January, which was within the cognisable period. The Complainant announced her resignation in this meeting and also announced that she had become engaged. Her evidence was that her Manager later held a separate meeting with the wider HR team and announced her resignation. The Complainant was not at this meeting but her hearsay evidence was that her Manager told the wider HR team that the resignation was due to her engagement. The Complainant was annoyed about this as she was clear her resignation was due to her health.

I do not know what the Complainant’s Manager said at that meeting. He could have announced both her engagement and her resignation and her colleagues made an inference that the two were connected. Either way, attributing the Complainant’s resignation to her engagement in a team meeting is hardly an act of discrimination on the grounds of race.

The Complainant gave evidence that her Manager failed to attend a number of one on one meetings with her. However, the only meeting she specifically identified in her evidence was on the 2nd of March 2023. Her Manager failed to give her notice that he would not attend a prescheduled one to one. The Complainant had prepared a series of points to raise with her Manager in this meeting about her previous interactions with him. His failure to attend without prior warning was obviously rude but I cannot see how it is connected to race, particular as the Complainant was working out her notice period. In my experience it would not be unusual for managers to fail to prioritise relationships with staff who are leaving the business.

The Complainant then raised the issues she was going to raise directly with her Manager with Mr Tyler Elmendorf on the 3rd of March 2023. In this meeting she outlined a request that she should still receive her bonus.  She has also raised the Respondent’s failure to pay her bonus as this was only payable to staff who were in post in May. However, she accepted under cross examination that this was a matter of policy and unconnected with race. She has suggested her not getting her bonus was a result of her resignation but she has not established that her resignation was due to racial discrimination. Her own evidence and resignation email appear to point to a few different factors and centre on her health.

In this meeting the Complainant asked to be put on garden leave which the Respondent facilitated. Her complaints regarding her Manager were then referred to the ethics team for investigation. Ms Fiona Briggs conducted an initial meeting with her to get a clear idea of the scope of the complaint. It was in this meeting that the Complainant first referred to a belief that she might be being racially discriminated against by her Manager.

Mr Sufiyan Sulaiman then conducted a more detailed investigation over the course of April and early May 2023. During this time the Complainant’s notice expired and she ceased working for the Respondent on the 11th of April 2023.

While the Complainant had been told she would receive an update as to the outcome of the investigation the Respondent failed to provide this. They have submitted that this was an error and oversight on their part. It would not be their practice to provide the report to a former employee however they would normally provide an update as to the outcome. I cannot see how this omission, after the employment relationship had ended, was connected to race or discriminatory.

As the Complainant has established no act of discrimination within the cognisable period the complaint must fail.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.