Sanju Pal can appeal tribunal decision in Accenture case

Sanju Pal, of West Hampstead , was sacked by financial services firm Accenture (UK) Ltd in 2019 after it claimed she was underperforming.

The company operated an “up or out” model, saying any employee not promoted within four years should go.

But the 41-year-old, who claims her performance was hindered by chronic illness, has won the right to challenge the legality of firing somebody because they can’t do a job above the one they’re in.

Her barrister Elaine Banton, of 7BR chambers, told the Employment Appeal Tribunal on Thursday (September 5) that the law says a worker can only be sacked for underperformance in “the position which the employee held”.

Judge Simon Auerbach, sitting at the Rolls Buildings in central London, permitted the appeal.

He said: “It is a point of some wider interest and significance, on which I could find only one authority from nearly 40 years ago.”

Ms Pal said: “With the help of my legal team, I want to challenge the fairness of this cutthroat model which exists in the consulting sector.”

Accenture declined to comment.

Tribunal judges ruled in 2022 that Sanju Pal had been unfairly dismissed by Accenture, but awarded her £0 damages because they said that if the correct procedure had been used, she still would have been sacked (Image: Charles Thomson)

“Progression-based model”

Ms Pal joined Accenture as an analyst in 2009, winning promotions in 2011, to consultant, and 2013, to manager.

She then remained at the same level for six years – but those included a sanctioned one-year leave of absence to pursue charity work.

She was sacked in summer 2019 but won an unfair dismissal claim in 2022 when tribunal judges ruled Accenture had used the wrong policy and process to fire her.

However, they made “a reduction of 100% to the compensatory award”, saying she would still have been sacked if Accenture had conducted the process correctly because she was “underperforming”.

Ms Banton argued the judges had “erred in law” as Ms Pal had been “performing well” in the role she actually held.

In the lead-up to her dismissal, managers called her a “go-to person” with a “willingness to roll up her sleeves”, who delivered “great” and “inspiring” work.

She was told her dismissal was “not about you being a bad person or a bad performer in the role you are in now,” but that Accenture “look at the behaviours at the next level up”.

Ms Pal was fired not long after taking months off work after surgery for cysts on her ovaries, caused by endometriosis. Tribunal judges said her performance scores were adjusted accordingly. Her barrister says they got that wrong (Image: Charles Thomson)

Endometriosis

Judge Auerbach granted Ms Pal permission to appeal on three grounds: the 100% reduction in damages; the finding that she could be sacked for failing to achieve promotion; and a finding that her performance was not impacted by disability.

Ms Pal was sacked soon after taking time off to recover from surgery for endometriosis, which caused repeated, painful cysts to grow on her ovaries. She was simultaneously struggling with sciatica.

Ms Banton said tribunal judges had made a series of “perverse” findings which “ignored” or contradicted the evidence of Ms Pal’s illness.

They ruled that Accenture did not have knowledge that Ms Pal’s health problems were causing long-term debilitation, accusing Ms Pal of “exaggerating” her health conditions and giving “selective and self-serving evidence”.

But Ms Banton directed Judge Auerbach to contemporaneous records showing Accenture was aware of Ms Pal’s ongoing endometriosis.

It was mentioned in an occupational health report and a senior staffer even sent an email suggesting Ms Pal’s condition might qualify as a disability.

“There is ample medical evidence of ongoing substantial adverse impact from a chronic condition of endometriosis that was disregarded by the employer,” said Ms Banton.

She added that tribunal judges had erroneously based their judgment on Ms Pal’s performance ratings having been adjusted to account for her sick leave, when in fact they had not.

Ms Pal, from West Hampstead, said she believed her appeal was an important battle on behalf of other women with endometriosis and people who have been sacked for failing to achieve promotion (Image: Charles Thomson)

“Many women”

Ms Pal claims to have turned down a six-figure settlement from Accenture and gone to the tribunal in 2022 “on principle”.

“Everyone always takes the settlement agreement and then no change ever happens,” she told the Ham&High. “I feel like I’m representing many, many women.”

She called her case “an important battle for women with endometriosis and employees in consulting firms.”

Ms Pal has launched a crowd-funding webpage, seeking £15,000 towards the legal costs of her appeal. So far, she has raised almost £1,700.

She claimed she had been unemployed ever since her dismissal and was now on benefits.

“I’ve gone through a horrific time with my mental health,” she said. “But my core is strong. My belief is that we have the capacity to change things in this world for the better. I know that deep down, I am strong.”

Accenture was not represented at the hearing, but has maintained throughout that its treatment of Ms Pal was lawful.