HSBC says gay banker case fair but not perfect
LONDON (Reuters) - A senior HSBC executive told an employment tribunal on Thursday the bank’s handling of a sexual harassment case which led to the dismissal of a gay banker was not perfect, but had been fair.
Charles Laughton-Scott, HSBC’s deputy head of global banking, who handled a disciplinary appeal by Peter Lewis, the gay banker, said: “We considered it had been a fair process. Was it perfect? No.”
HSBC has been accused of omitting key facts in Lewis’s case. He has denied allegations from a colleague that he had masturbated in a shower cubicle next to the colleague and looked at him in a way that made him feel uncomfortable.
The man who made the allegations is not being identified for legal reasons and is known as Mr A. Another HSBC employee — Mr B — also made allegations against Lewis. HSBC has denied discrimination on sexual or other grounds.
Thinking of making a debt settlement offer? See common settlement scams and rip-offs first
Call somebody about this, anywhere in the world, for FREE
Lewis’s lawyer, Alison Downie, a partner at Bindman & Partners, said they were pleased that the tribunal had found HSBC had discriminated against Lewis on grounds of his sexual orientation on a number of issues.
The tribunal was highly critical of Natalie Hattrell, an HSBC human resources executive who conducted the initial investigation into the allegations against Lewis.
“We take into account that there was both embellishment and exaggeration by Mrs Hattrell and also that on significant points, her credibility was lacking.”
The tribunal found that Hattrell discriminated against Lewis and said she had a “closed mind” on his case in that she did not consider there was any alternative to dismissal.
It found that HSBC’s decision to suspend Lewis while the allegations against him were investigated was discriminatory.
It also ruled Lewis was discriminated against by the inclusion of a second allegation against him by another employee. “It was a hearsay allegation, based upon flimsy evidence and salacious in its effect,” the tribunal said.
“We have decided that there are facts from which the tribunal could conclude … less favourable treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, but … the decision to dismiss was not in fact influenced by … sexual orientation,” the tribunal said in its 68-page judgement.