Time zones: EST (UTC -5), CST (UTC -6), MST (UTC -7), PST (UTC -8), AKST (UTC -9), HST (UTC -10)
Manifold is an innovative AI-powered clinical research platform that simplifies the complex workflows of study and data management. Our mission is to empower researchers to conduct high-impact research efficiently, using fewer resources. We partner with research organizations and cancer centers nationwide, significantly reducing the time researchers need to derive insights from their data.
As a Senior Software Engineer at Manifold, you will play a pivotal role in the development of our core product. Your primary focus will be on frontend development, crafting high-quality code with React and Typescript. Additionally, you will engage with Python backend development, data manipulation, and AWS services. This position offers the unique opportunity to work closely with a collaborative team and interact directly with our users, providing solutions that make a real difference in the world of clinical research.
Develop and maintain scalable and robust frontend applications using React and Typescript.
Contribute to backend development and data manipulation with Python.
Collaborate with cross-functional teams to define, design, and ship new features.
Engage directly with users to understand their needs and incorporate feedback into product enhancements.
Ensure the performance, quality, and responsiveness of applications.
Identify and correct bottlenecks and fix bugs.
Continuously discover, evaluate, and implement new technologies to maximize development efficiency.
3+ years of software engineering experience.
Proven experience in building and shipping web applications to production.
Proficiency in React and Typescript is essential.
Experience with Python, backend development, and AWS is highly desirable.
Ability to work independently and make decisions with uncertain information.
A problem-solver who is willing to tackle challenges outside of core expertise.
Commitment to shipping software daily when it adds value, with a focus on practicality over perfection.
If you are a self-starter who is passionate about developing innovative software solutions and making an impact in the field of clinical research, we would love to hear from you. Apply now to become a part of Manifold’s mission to revolutionize the way research is conducted.
“Non-financial misconduct is misconduct, plain and simple” – that is what Christopher Woolard (former FCA director) said in 2018. Except that as it turns out, fairly predictably when dealing with shades of human behaviour, it’s not that plain, nor that simple. With a lack of guidance on what non-financial misconduct (NFM) actually is, firms have thus far been left to their own devices to define NFM as best they can, and they have been the arbiters of when conduct becomes a regulatory breach. This has led to firms taking differing approaches and applying differing standards, some very much more puritanical than others.
Given this inconsistency and uncertainty, the industry urged the FCA to provide clarity, guidance, and in particular, some tangible examples of NFM. The proposals set out by the FCA in its consultation paper (CP23/20) last year aim to do exactly that. While these proposals still fail to provide a single definition of the term, they do set out when NFM might be relevant to the FCA’s existing rules – specifically, the Conduct Rules, Fitness and Propriety assessments and the Threshold Conditions – and are to that extent useful.
It is important to emphasise again that, at the moment, these are just proposals. The FCA is still considering, for example, how its proposals tie in with existing employment law. So, there is scope for some change, though probably not much. Regardless, as the FCA’s position is that its proposals just clarify its existing expectations rather than amend them, it is certainly worth examining them briefly.
Conduct Rules
To recap, the Conduct Rules seek to regulate the conduct of individuals working in regulated businesses. They apply to all staff other than ancillary staff (receptionists, cleaners, etc.), and therefore go beyond just those carrying out formally regulated activities as SMFs or certified staff.
The FCA’s NFM proposals clarify, in broad terms, that serious cases of misconduct (broadly summarised as serious cases of ‘bullying or harassment’) towards colleagues, employees of group companies and contractors might breach the Conduct Rules – but only to the extent that the conduct relates to the part of the firm’s business that carries out regulated activities and occurs in a work context, rather than relating to the individual’s private or personal life. To that end, the general position is that misconduct outside of work isn’t NFM that could breach the Conduct Rules – although, as employment lawyers and HR professional know well, the dividing line between work and someone’s personal life can be notoriously difficult to draw, especially where the individual and hence employer is in the press or on social media as a result.
The FCA has sought to assist with that distinction by setting out a list of relevant factors, such as whether the conduct occurred on the firm’s premises, involved firm clients or someone the person had dealt with on behalf of their firm, or was committed using the firm’s equipment and so on. Without wishing to be in any way ungrateful, of course, these do rather state the obvious. The FCA has also provided a table that sets out examples of conduct that falls within the scope of the Conduct Rule and that which does not, on account of its occurring in someone private or personal life. These make it clear that for the purposes of the Conduct Rules at least, domestic violence or sexual misconduct in relation to a member of the public committed whilst commuting would not be a breach of the Conduct Rules (but read on, as that sort of conduct would very likely be relevant to the Fitness and Propriety provisions). Whilst the guidance and examples provided by the FCA might assist to some limited extent, we do have to question whether this tricky distinction (work life -vs- home life) that the courts and Tribunals have sought to clarify through years of case law can be neatly codified in two sides of A4.
As well as guidance on where the line between a work context and someone’s personal life might be drawn, the FCA has provided a list of the factors that tend to suggest conduct is serious enough to breach the Conduct Rules. These include, as you might expect, conduct that is repeated (particularly after previous warnings), where the perpetrator is senior to the subject of the misconduct in question and where the conduct is discriminatory as opposed to simply unpleasant without any connection to a protected characteristic. There is no obvious attempt yet to address the issue at the heart of any attempt to make discriminatory harassment into NFM, i.e. that the conduct in question may be wholly inadvertent or even positively well-intended.
There is also more specific guidance proposed on when conduct might breach Conduct Rule 1 (the requirement to act with integrity) and when a failure to act appropriately against NFM might see a manager breach Conduct Rule 2 (the requirement to act with due skill, care and diligence).
Fitness and Propriety
The FCA’s proposals make it clear that conduct that breaches its own standards might mean that the individual is not fit and proper to perform their role. That includes:
a breach of the Conduct Rules;
a failure by an individual to meet a standard that must be met for their role;
involvement by that individual in a breach by the firm of its regulatory requirements; and
involvement in “discriminatory practices”.
It is perhaps worth noting here that the FCA defines “discriminatory practices” as discrimination, harassment or victimisation linked to an individual’s “demographic characteristics”. “Demographic characteristics” are not the same as protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (age, sex, race etc.)). It is a broader concept that also appears to include things such as someone’s socio-economic background. So, class discrimination, in effect. While potentially seen as radical, it is a concept being discussed more and more amongst employment lawyers. How it will work in an industry as additionally divided between Old Money and New Money is yet to be seen.
Unlike the Conduct Rules, the requirement for a senior individual to be ‘fit and proper’ certainly does stretch into an individual’s personal and private life. The clarity regarding NFM gives us a better understanding of the types of unpalatable personal conduct that the FCA considers falls within its remit– here domestic violence and sexual misconduct outside of work very likely would be relevant, especially if they attracted any publicity and so affected the individual’s reputation. A personal matter might show that an individual lacks fitness and propriety to perform their role if (in broad terms):
it might be repeated in work;
it is morally reprehensible; or
the fact of the individual working in the sector and having behaved in that way might undermine confidence in the sector or the financial system.
Therefore, any violence, dishonesty or discrimination (regardless of where it occurs) could in principle render an individual unfit under the Fitness and Propriety test.
Threshold Conditions
The FCA has also set out proposals on how instances of NFM occurring within a firm will be relevant to the Threshold Conditions – so, the assessment of whether the firm itself is suitable to perform its regulated activities.
Specifically, the proposed guidance seeks to expressly include violent and sexual offences as well as discriminatory practices into factors the FCA will consider when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, this Threshold Condition.
Does the new definition work?
The answer to this is fairly nuanced – “yes” and “no”. The proposed rules are detailed, but not necessarily simple. The rules overlap, but don’t always tally up, with employment law. They will help guide firms, but won’t always fit into their current infrastructure. There are a very large number of coulds and mights and relevants, with the final determination of fitness and propriety still left firmly with employers. Different standards may apply (at the margins) to different strands of the FS industry where different risks and exposures apply. But what is clear across the piece is that employers will need to be able to show that they have separately applied their mind to the specific facts in each case – a blanket policy that all harassment or dishonesty or discrimination or even violence of any kind necessarily amounts to NFM is to take far too simplistic a view. That would both undermine the FCA’s objectives (to clean the industry up, not clear it out) and lead employers into significant issues in the Employment Tribunal. It would also potentially clog up whatever system the FCA proposes to deal with challenges to employers’ determinations on the question, since it cannot be said as a matter of law or fact that all those behaviours necessarily go to one’s fitness to practice. The FCA’s new guidance, when implemented, will be a steer to employers, something else to think about, but in our view it will not require or permit them to do anything to their employees which would not already be lawful.
For these proposed definitions to be effective, they must be embraced – it doesn’t matter how comprehensive the new definition of NFM is unless it is understood by those responsible for identifying and responding to it. When these rules are published, we encourage all those in the industry to ensure they are familiar with the rules, the guidance and their potential ramifications. It might be worth pencilling in training sessions for later in the year when the final rules are likely to be published.
It is also worth being aware that the FCA’s proposals coincide with the new duty for all employers to take reasonable proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. That duty will come into force in the autumn. For our clients in the financial services sector, we propose that they weave into that training, guidance for the general workforce on the potential professional consequences of engaging in NFM, expressly including (though not limited to) sexual harassment.
If you want to discuss what training you might offer your workforce, please do get in touch.
The third video to accompany this series is available here.
On March 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit published a decision in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC, holding that the Plaintiff Adan Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) qualified as a “transportation worker” under the Federal Arbitration Act, and was thus exempted from mandatory arbitration under the FAA. The district court rejected the employer’s arguments that Plaintiff was bound by the arbitration mandate under the FAA because he performed duties on a purely local basis. This case continues to establish that the scope of the “transportation worker” exemption under the FAA is broader than only those workers that physically move goods or people across state lines, such as truck drivers and cargo pilots.
Randstad, a temporary staffing company, hired Ortiz on several occasions, during one of which he worked in a California warehouse facility operated by GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. The warehouse received international shipments for Adidas, stored those goods, and prepared them for distribution across state lines. GXO does not move Adidas products to or from its warehouse, and Ortiz’s job duties included exclusively warehouse work such as transporting goods to warehouse racks and assisting in preparing packages for shipment. Neither Ortiz, nor any of GXO’s employees, were responsible for unloading goods arriving at the warehouse nor loading those scheduled for departure. Ortiz filed a class action in California state court against Randstad and GXO in March 2022, alleging various violations of California labor law, all of which were covered by the terms of the arbitration agreement he signed with Randstad. Randstad timely removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration, which GXO joined. Ortiz resisted enforceability of the arbitration agreement on the basis that he was exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA, as a “transportation worker.”
The district court ruled that Ortiz was exempt from the FAA as a transportation worker, a class of worker “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” because his employment involved the movement of goods across borders, even if his own job duties were localized at the warehouse. To reach this conclusion, the district court’s analysis followed the two-step process established in Saxon v. Southwest Airlines Co., discussed in a prior blog. In applying that two-step analysis, the district court rejected Randstad’s arguments that Ortiz was bound by the arbitration mandate under the FAA because he performed duties on a purely local basis, finding that Ortiz played a direct and necessarily role in the free flow of goods across borders.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed under the Saxon framework, in which the first step is to define the relevant “class of workers” to which the employee belongs, and the second step is to determine whether that class of workers is “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” In so doing, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court had correctly first considered Ortiz’s job duties (by reference to his job description), which included transporting packages to and from storage racks, helping other employees in obtaining packages, and assisting the Outflow Department in preparing packages for shipment. Thus, the district court correctly defined Ortiz’s “class of workers” as exclusively warehouse work.
As to Saxon’s second step, the Ninth Circuit found the district court correctly concluded Ortiz’s “class of workers” played a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders, and actively engaged in transportation of such goods. Ortiz was “actively engaged” and “intimately involved with” transportation of such goods. Ortiz handled goods from entering the warehouse, to storage and leaving the warehouse, which were necessary steps in their ongoing interstate journey to their final destination. In other words, Ortiz handled Adidas products near the heart of their supply chain and played a necessary part in facilitating their continued movement. Ortiz clarifies that what matters under the Saxon analysis is the interstate flow of the goods, and the worker’s function in the movement of such goods, and so an employee is not categorically excluded from the “transportation worker” exemption when he performs duties on a purely local level. Stated differently, it is not the distance the worker moves the goods but that the worker is essential in moving the goods in their interstate journey. As such, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the employers’ motion to compel arbitration.
As Saxon and Ortiz make clear, the “transportation worker” exemption under the FAA more broadly covers the “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” to include exclusively local employees whose functions are essential in the movement of goods across state or international lines. Of note, however, Ortiz also made clear that not every connection to commerce will suffice and some job descriptions may reflect workers are further removed from physically handing the goods than Ortiz. In the end, the analysis is, as always, performed on a case-by-case basis.
Moving forward, employers with arbitration agreements – especially those who ship or assist in the shipping of goods or people across state or international lines – should critically analyze each employee’s (or class of employees’) job duties to determine whether a Section 1 exemption might apply under the FAA. Further, employers should follow updates carefully when seeking to enforce arbitration agreements with this class of “transportation workers.”
Did you know that slip and fall accidents are one of the leading causes of injuries on commercial and residential premises? According to recent statistics, these incidents are more common than you might think, and their consequences can be severe.
Office accidents can be a real drag on productivity, with slips and falls being the most common culprit. But fear not! By following some simple safety tips, you can create a happier, healthier, and more productive work environment for everyone. In this blog post, we’ll explore the importance of preventing slip and fall incidents on your property and provide actionable tips to help you create a safer environment for everyone. So, let’s lace up our safety boots and take a proactive approach to minimizing these risks.
Understanding the Risks
Slip and fall incidents may seem minor, but their consequences can be far-reaching. From physical injuries to legal liabilities and financial burdens, these accidents pose significant risks for property owners and occupants alike.
Injuries:Slip and fall accidents can result in a wide range of injuries, from minor bruises to severe fractures or head trauma. Even seemingly harmless falls can lead to long-term health complications, affecting both the injured individual and their quality of life.
Liability: Property owners may face legal repercussions if someone is injured due to negligence in maintaining safe premises. Lawsuits stemming from slip and fall incidents can result in hefty settlements, tarnishing the reputation of businesses or individuals and causing financial strain.
Financial Cost: Beyond legal expenses, slip and fall accidents can incur substantial financial costs. Medical bills, lost wages due to injury-related absences from work, and potential settlements can all add up, impacting both individuals and businesses alike.
Understanding these risks underscores the importance of taking proactive measures to prevent slip and fall incidents on your premises. By prioritizing safety, property owners can mitigate risks and create a secure environment for everyone.
Proactive Prevention Strategies
To mitigate the risks of slip and fall incidents, proactive prevention strategies are crucial. Here are some actionable tips to help you maintain a safe environment on your premises:
Floor Maintenance
Regular cleaning and sweeping are essential to remove debris and spills promptly. Invest in high-quality floor mats at entrances and exits to absorb moisture and prevent slippery surfaces. Opt for slip-resistant floor surfaces in high-traffic areas to enhance traction and reduce the risk of falls.
Lighting
Ensure adequate lighting throughout your premises, especially in dimly lit areas prone to shadows and trip hazards. Consider installing motion-activated lights in specific locations to improve visibility and alertness.
Signage
Clear and visible warning signs for wet floors or uneven surfaces are crucial to alert individuals of potential hazards. Additionally, use directional signage to guide traffic flow and prevent overcrowding in hallways and walkways.
Handrails
Sturdy handrails on stairwells and ramps provide essential support and stability for individuals navigating your premises. Ensure handrails are installed at appropriate heights and securely anchored to prevent accidents.
By implementing these proactive prevention strategies, property owners can significantly reduce the risk of slip and fall incidents on their premises. Remember, prevention is always better than cure when it comes to ensuring the safety and well-being of everyone on your property.
Addressing Specific Concerns
While proactive prevention measures are essential, addressing specific concerns can further enhance safety on your premises. Here’s how to tackle some common issues:
Winter Weather
During the colder months, snow and ice can create hazardous conditions. Implement snow removal protocols to promptly clear walkways and parking lots after snowfall. Use salt or de-icing solutions to prevent ice buildup and ensure safe passage for pedestrians.
Uneven Surfaces
Regular inspections are vital to identify and address cracks, uneven sidewalks, or damaged carpet edges. Repair any uneven surfaces promptly to prevent trips and falls. Clearly mark temporary uneven surfaces with cones or caution tape to alert individuals and prevent accidents.
By addressing these specific concerns, property owners can proactively mitigate the risks associated with slip and fall incidents, particularly during adverse weather conditions or when navigating uneven terrain. With proper maintenance and attention to detail, you can create a safer environment for everyone on your premises.
Promoting a Safety Culture
Creating a safety-conscious culture among staff or tenants is instrumental in preventing slip and fall incidents. Here are some strategies to promote a safety-first mindset:
Raise Awareness: Educate staff or tenants about the importance of slip and fall prevention and the potential consequences of negligence. Highlight the shared responsibility in maintaining a safe environment and encourage everyone to remain vigilant.
Clear Communication: Establish clear communication channels for reporting spills, hazards, or maintenance issues promptly. Encourage open dialogue and empower individuals to speak up about potential safety concerns without fear of retribution.
Safety Training: Provide comprehensive safety training programs for staff to identify and address potential risks effectively. Include instruction on proper cleaning techniques, hazard recognition, and emergency response protocols to equip employees with the knowledge and skills they need to contribute to a safer environment.
By fostering a safety-conscious culture and equipping individuals with the necessary tools and knowledge, property owners can proactively prevent slip and fall incidents and create a collaborative environment where everyone feels empowered to prioritize safety.
A Collective Responsibility
In conclusion, preventing slip and fall incidents on your premises is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative. The ripple effects of these accidents can be profound, affecting individuals physically, emotionally, and financially. However, by implementing proactive measures, addressing specific concerns, and promoting a safety culture, you can create an environment that prioritizes the well-being of everyone.
Remember, safety is a collective responsibility. By investing in prevention strategies, fostering open communication, and providing ongoing training, you contribute to the overall safety of your premises. So, let’s take the necessary steps to make our spaces secure, welcoming, and free from the risks of slip and fall incidents. Your commitment to safety today ensures a safer, more resilient community tomorrow.
Time zones: EST (UTC -5), MST (UTC -7), ART (UTC -3), UTC -4, UTC -4:30, UTC -3, UTC -2
Relay Commerce is building a portfolio of software solutions to help merchants scale e-commerce and simplify their marketing tech stack. Powered by a centralized customer data platform, Relay’s suite of software tools allows merchants to automate key revenue generation workflows to drive organic growth and increased profitability.
The Relay ecosystem currently consists of seven software products that accelerate merchant revenue growth through email marketing automation, user generated content management, on-page conversion optimization, retention analytics and bookings management. Relay’s products are established as key tools in the SMB e-commerce revenue generation stack, servicing more than 35K customers globally that collectively generate >$1BN in GMV annually.
Relay is actively building the ecosystem by acquiring commerce enablement tools primarily serving e-commerce merchants on platforms including Shopify, BigCommerce, and Wix. Relay acquires ‘ready to scale’, oftentimes bootstrapped businesses, and invests in people, processes, and products to accelerate the product roadmap and growth.
About the Role
The Customer Success team is the first line of contact for our merchant customers, and the Customer Success Manager (CSM) role is the key to leading the team to help merchants minimize the time it takes to see positive ROI from Relay’s products.
The Customer Success Manager oversees a team of Customer Success Specialists (CSS), who are product experts and problem solvers. The Customer Success Specialists help train customers on how to set up workflows in the product, and help users troubleshoot issues and overcome roadblocks.
The Customer Success team interacts with customers day-to-day, and has significant responsibility as the voice of the Relay team. Every team member, from CEO to CSS, strives to project a positive, helpful, and professional image.
The manager role helps train the Success team and manage team KPIs. Finally, the CSM role helps inform product development by proactively contributing insights from customer interactions that close any gap between product features and customer needs.
About the Product
Peel Insights is a retention data analytics platform for seven-figure and larger D2C and e-commerce brands. It helps data-driven and customer-obsessed D2C brands by providing insights that improve retention, boost LTV, and increase repeat revenue.
Peel powers customer and retention data analytics for hundreds of Shopify and Shopify Plus brands. D2C brands not on Shopify can also use Peel seamlessly.
Primary Responsibilities
Ensure all qualified customers see a ROI(return on investment).
Develop and execute a customer success strategy that aligns with the company’s goals and objectives.
Collect feedback from customers on the product and work with the product team to ensure that customer needs are addressed in product development.
Be responsible for customer retention and growth, including contract renewals and identifying opportunities for upselling and cross-selling.
Track customer metrics such as product usage, engagement, and satisfaction to ensure your book of business is optimally managed.
Ensure that customer data is accurate, up-to-date, and securely managed.
Serve as the “voice of the customer” and provide feedback to Product and Marketing teams on how we can better serve our customers.
Continuously learn about the industry, the market, and the product to stay up-to-date and provide the best possible support and advice to customers.
Important Traits for Success
Organization: the CSM is comfortable establishing processes and frameworks to manage the Customer Success specialists.
Sense of ownership: the CSM is excited to build the customer success function and grow with the team to build a best in class Customer Success organization.
User-first mindset: the manager approaches problems by first understanding the user’s needs. You’re obsessed with helping Relay’s merchants do their day-to-day jobs better.
Empathy: the manager can effectively put themselves in the shoes of a user and articulate what their needs are to developers, Product Managers, marketers, and the CEO.
Collaborate cross-functionally: the manager is comfortable working across internal teams (product, marketing, leadership) to effectively communicate customer needs internally and communicate product and marketing features externally.
Problem solver: the manager can approach problems in a logical, structured way; can help customers brainstorm solutions, or know when to elevate requests to technical support.
Strong communicator: the manager is an attentive and active listener, and can explain & interact with customers with a positive tone.
Proactive: surfaces product suggestions, concerns, and insights fearlessly and with a sense of ownership.
Demonstrate Relay’s Core Values in all professional interactions.
Requirements & Preferred Qualifications
Experience working collaboratively with technical counterparts like developers, QA, and designers.
Experience building and leading Customer Success functions like support ticketing systems, customer feedback logging, customer segmentation, and bug reporting systems.
The CSM excels at written and oral communication skills, with the ability to write documentation and interface verbally on video calls with both customers and internal teams.
Direct industry experience in ecommerce or B2B SaaS; ideally experience working with SMB customers on Shopify or other ecommerce platforms.
Experience and proficiency in using systems like Intercom, Notion, and other tools of the trade, and an enthusiasm to adapt and learn new tool sets as we evolve.
Minimum 5+ years experience in Customer Success, or consultative customer facing roles like Sales, Account Management, and the like.
Protect, the UK whistleblowing charity established to promote ethical standards of conduct and compliance with the law, will be 30 years old next year – and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) is only five years younger.
Standards of conduct and what we mean by whistleblowing have evolved in that time. 20 years ago, most of what Protect advisers heard about was financial misconduct or patient safety. The range of concerns is now dramatically wider, from greenwashing to anti-trans discrimination. Our 2021 Impact Report shows that, since 2017, the proportion of harassment cases reported to us has increased by 100%. After #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, what were once seen as purely individual grievances may now easily pass the public interest test. A sign of the change is that regulators consider that culture is part of their remit; we have come a long way from the time when disclosures were less likely to be protected if the whistleblower also had a private interest in raising them.
Expanding the scope of protection
After 25 years, there are some who argue that, due to PIDA’s low success rate at full hearing, the law is no longer fit for purpose. Yet we should not throw the baby out with the bath water when there is definite room for improvement, especially when the success rate at tribunal is comparable with other types of claim and does not consider the number of cases that settle. The official tribunal statistics for 2020/2021 show that only 3% of PIDA claims issued were successful at hearing (and 33% were resolved through Acas conciliation). Similarly, only 3% of race discrimination claims issued were successful at full hearing (and 29% were settled via Acas conciliation).
Reform should start with the need to fit PIDA into the 21st century gig economy, where there is no all-encompassing definition of “worker”. We need to expand the scope of whistleblowing protection. The EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1937/EU (Directive), which has now been implemented in ten EU member states, relates to “work-related activities” and expressly protects job applicants, the self-employed, shareholders, non-executive directors, volunteers (including trustees) and trainees – unlike PIDA which is much more limited in scope.
Imbalance of power
But more importantly, because of the power imbalance between the organisation and individual whistleblowers, it is often extremely difficult for whistleblowers to obtain any kind of redress for retaliation suffered, let alone ensure the concern is addressed.
The YouGov researchwe commissioned in spring 2021 showed that only 31% of workers knew how to raise a concern at work. And ourreportexamining COVID-19 whistleblowing concerns reported to our Advice Line in 2020 showed that 41% of whistleblowers felt ignored when they raised their concerns and 20% were dismissed as a result.
This may be because our law does not impose any minimum standards on employers. PIDA is only concerned about “after the event” retaliation. There is no positive requirement for organisations in the UK to have any particular whistleblowing process (outside a few regulated sectors, such as financial services). In the EU, the Directive requires employers with 50 or more workers to establish internal reporting channels and imposes strict deadlines to acknowledge and feedback on concerns raised. Impartiality, confidentiality and clear details on how to report externally to a relevant regulator are all required. This a change we should introduce in the UK.
Difficulty in succeeding at tribunal
Finally, we need to address the difficulty in winning a claim in the employment tribunal. The Directive reverses the burden of proof in whistleblowing claims so that, once a whistleblower demonstrates that they reported a breach and suffered a detriment, the burden of proof shifts to the person who caused the detriment to demonstrate that the detriment was not linked in any way to the whistleblowing and was based on justified grounds. The Directive also requires national governments to provide sources of free and independent legal advice and assistance to whistleblowers.
Protect’s proposal is to simplify the UK’s whistleblowing regime and harmonise it with the discrimination rules, which are much better understood by both employers and workers. There should not be different tests depending on whether you claim whistleblowing dismissal or detriment, for instance. Ms Kong’s plight illustrates this rather starkly (Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 941, in which Protect intervened).
Kong
Ms Kong was Head of Internal Audit at Gulf Bank and alerted the Head of Legal that the new investment products the bank wanted to sell were not regulatory compliant, which was indeed the case. The Head of Legal, who was partly responsible for the legal assessment, took this very badly and complained to HR that she did not want to work with Ms Kong anymore. The senior partners took the view that Ms Kong should be summarily dismissed because of her behaviour and manner towards the Head of Legal when raising her concerns.
Despite finding that Ms Kong had raised her concerns in a reasonable manner, the Tribunal decided that the fact that the dismissing officers considered her conduct to be unacceptable was enough to defeat her claim of automatically unfair dismissal. However, the Tribunal accepted that Ms Kong’s detriment claim would have succeeded had it not been brought out of time – which feels particularly unfair in cases such as whistleblowing where it is more appropriate to see the raising of concerns (and the victimisation resulting from it) as a journey rather than an act at a particular time.
This is despite the fact that the Court of Appeal agreed that the purpose of PIDA is to “encourage responsible whistleblowing” (Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026). There was no dispute that Ms Kong was acting as a responsible whistleblower.
When PIDA was introduced, Lord Borrie said in a House of Lords debate that it should send “a clear signal to people in places of work up and down the country that if they suspect wrongdoing, the law will stand by them provided they raise the matter in a responsible and reasonable way”.
But this was not the case. Ms Kong suffered dramatic retaliation and was denied any whistleblowing remedy. The UK framework appears inconsistent, unduly complex and just too difficult to access to ensure workers’ statutory whistleblowing rights. This risks having a chilling effect on workers’ willingness to “speak up” in the workplace, in the knowledge that even where that is done in a manner which is “conciliatory in tone and careful”, and is to be regarded as “acting reasonably” (as the employment tribunal found in Ms Kong’s case), they may nevertheless be denied protection from retaliatory treatment. Ms Kong is currently seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Whistleblowing is good for workers who should feel psychologically safe at work, it is good for businesses who can detect and deter wrongdoing, foster productivity and loyalty, and it is good for society as a whole. It should not be controversial to be able to raise concerns safely when things go wrong: freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and whistleblowers are acting in the public interest.
So we need to improve our current law. It affects us all.
Caregiver discrimination is a growing issue in workplaces across the country. As more employees take on caregiving responsibilities for children, elderly family members, or loved ones with disabilities, it’s essential to understand your rights and how to address any discrimination you might face.
What is Caregiver Discrimination?
Caregiver discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee unfavorably because of their caregiving responsibilities. This can manifest in various ways, such as:
Denial of Leave: Refusing to grant leave requests for caregiving purposes.
Retaliation: Punishing an employee for taking or requesting leave, such as through demotion or termination.
Bias and Stereotyping: Assuming caregivers are less competent or committed to their jobs.
Legal Protections for Caregivers
While there is no single federal law explicitly protecting caregivers, several laws offer some protections:
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons, including caregiving.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Protects employees from discrimination based on their association with an individual with a disability.
State and Local Laws: Some states and municipalities have laws that provide additional protections for caregivers.
Recognizing Caregiver Discrimination
Identifying caregiver discrimination can be challenging, but common signs include:
Unjust Denial of Leave: Refusal to grant leave without a valid reason.
Negative Job Actions: Demotion, termination, or reduction in hours after requesting or taking leave.
Hostile Work Environment: Negative comments or treatment from supervisors or coworkers related to caregiving responsibilities.
Steps to Take if You Experience Caregiver Discrimination
If you believe you are facing caregiver discrimination, take these steps:
Document Everything: Keep detailed records of any discriminatory actions, including dates, times, and the individuals involved.
Report the Discrimination: Inform your employer’s HR department or follow your company’s procedure for reporting discrimination. Ensure your complaint is in writing.
Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an experienced employment attorney to understand your rights and the best course of action.
File a Complaint: If internal reporting doesn’t resolve the issue, you may need to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or your state’s labor agency.
Talk to an Experienced Employment Attorney Now
Experiencing caregiver discrimination can be frustrating and intimidating, but you don’t have to face it alone. Consulting with an experienced employment attorney at The Spiggle Law Firm can provide the guidance and support you need to navigate this challenging situation.
For a detailed discussion on how we can assist you, contact us for a free case review. Call us at (202) 972-6547or complete our online contactform to get started.
At The Spiggle Law Firm, our5-star lawyersrepresent clients in all types of employment law claims, providing strategic representation and client-focused service in the pursuit of optimal outcomes and the maximum available recoveries. We are ready to help you seek the justice you may deserve.
