Connect with us

News

UK judge rules against FCA manager who wanted to work from home

Published

on

UK judge rules against FCA manager who wanted to work from home

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A judge has ruled against a senior manager at the UK Financial Conduct Authority who wanted to work from home full-time, finding that the office was a better environment for “rapid discussion” and “non-verbal communication”.

In a decision that will be watched closely by other employers trying to push staff back to the office, employment judge Robert Richter found that the financial watchdog was within its rights to deny Elizabeth Wilson’s request, saying there were “weaknesses with remote working”.

“It is the experience of many who work using technology that it is not well suited to the fast-paced interplay of exchanges which occur in, for example, planning meetings or training events when rapid discussion can occur on topics,” he wrote in the judgment, which was made last month and published this week.

Advertisement

He also pointed to “a limitation to the ability to observe and respond to non-verbal communication which may arise outside of the context of formal events but which nonetheless forms an important part of working with other individuals”.

The case before the employment tribunal in Croydon — itself heard remotely, with evidence given over video link — is one of the first since the pandemic to deal with the question of working from home.

Lawyers said they expect more legal disputes over the issue as employers increasingly demand staff spend more time in the office now the Covid-19 health emergency has abated.

“This is a case which raises a key issue in the modern workplace and which will no doubt be the subject of continued litigation,” wrote Judge Richter. “Ultimately it may be the case that each situation requires its own consideration.”

Companies including Lloyds Banking Group — which has offered staff free food in its offices — and Citigroup are among those that have pushed UK workers to turn up more frequently.

Advertisement

Ms Wilson — whose £140,000 salary is twice the FCA’s average pay — brought the case after managers rejected her request to permanently work from home following the easing of pandemic restrictions, despite glowing performance reviews.

Employees in England and Wales have no general right to demand exclusive remote work unless it is specified in their contract, although employers are required to consider requests and are only able to refuse them for good reasons.

In the FCA case, Judge Richter found that the watchdog was within its rights to deny Wilson’s request, although the judge ordered that she should receive £640 compensation because the regulator took too long to handle her application.

Wilson’s line manager agreed that Wilson had “performed very well” when working from home, according to the judgment, but told her that making the arrangement permanent would have a “negative impact on the department”, citing managerial responsibilities and noting she would not attend face-to-face training sessions and meetings.

Wilson directly managed four staff and had indirect responsibility for another 10, according to the ruling. She was part of a team of about 650 that authorises companies and individuals who want to do business in the financial sector. It is an area that has come under fire from politicians and companies for delays, though its recent performance has improved.

Advertisement

Wilson told the tribunal that the FCA had “excellent” technology and that many purported disadvantages of remote working were “not real”, according to the judgment. She also noted a lack of physical meeting space at the FCA.

The judge said the FCA had sought to “genuinely consider” the request.

The tribunal cannot compel an employer to allow a member of staff to work from home permanently, but it does have the power to order it to reconsider and award compensation.

The FCA declined to comment. The regulator introduced formal hybrid working policies in September 2022 requiring staff to be in the office for a minimum of 40 per cent of the time over a month. Wilson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The regulator has struggled with employee unrest in recent years, particularly since it moved to east London from Canary Wharf in 2018. Staff picketed its offices in 2022 to protest against a contentious restructuring plan.

Advertisement

News

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

Published

on

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.

According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.

The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.

“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”

The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.

Advertisement

Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.

There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.

The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.

Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending