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

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending