An employment tribunal rejected a race discrimination claim brought by an aspiring trainee solicitor against Clyde & Co, finding decisions were based on eligibility rather than race.
Despite clearing the firm, the tribunal criticised its handling of the application process and said “important lessons” should be learned.
A London employment tribunal has rejected a racial discrimination claim brought by an aspiring trainee solicitor against Clyde & Co, but delivered a blunt postscript suggesting the firm should “learn some important lessons” about how its early careers team handled the process.
Anne Epelle, a Nigerian woman based in Lagos, brought claims of direct race discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation after being rejected for training contract applications in Clydes’ London, Hamburg and Bristol offices between 2022 and 2024.
After a three-day hearing in October, the tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the decisions were driven by eligibility criteria and candidate scoring rather than race.
The tribunal accepted the firm’s evidence that Epelle did not meet its academic requirements, particularly its A-level threshold of A-A-B, compared with her grades of C-D-E. That, it said, was sufficient to explain her rejection across all three processes. In the Bristol application, the tribunal also found that four higher-scoring candidates were invited to the assessment centre, in line with the firm’s standard approach.
Claims of indirect discrimination - including challenges to Clydes’ use of in-person assessment centres and a £150 cap on travel expenses - were also rejected. While the tribunal accepted that such requirements could disadvantage overseas applicants, it found that Epelle would not have progressed in any event because she did not meet the academic criteria. In the alternative, it said the firm was justified in applying those requirements.
Claims relating to the London and Hamburg applications were also found to be out of time.
Lessons to be learned
While the tribunal cleared Clydes of unlawful discrimination, it was openly critical of how the firm handled the application process.
It described the tone of some early careers correspondence as “at very best remarkably gauche and inept”, and highlighted the “extraordinary failure” to notify Epelle of the outcome of her London application.
The tribunal said the firm should “learn some important lessons” from the case, adding that Clyde & Co’s claims of a “passionate commitment to inclusion and diversity” did not at all times “sit comfortably” with its findings on how Epelle’s applications were managed, particularly in relation to the Bristol and London training contracts.
Join 10,000+ City law professionals who start their day with our newsletter.
The essential read for commercially aware lawyers.
