FCA Non-Financial Misconduct — Equality Act Investigation

The Quiet Part

A Black analyst filed a formal grievance alleging discriminatory treatment. She has nine months of comparative data. You are Head of DE&I. At your last firm, you filed a grievance that was upheld on paper. Nothing changed. You took this job to build something different.

Persons of Interest

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I (You)

Zara Mensah

Analyst • Complainant

Marcus Webb

Team Lead • Accused

Helen Baxter

Chief People Officer

Case File: 0% Complete

Case Briefing — The Grievance

Wednesday, 09:12

Case File

Ashworth Rathbone • 4th Floor

Formal grievance. Zara Mensah, Analyst, Wealth Advisory. Three years in. Alleges a pattern by team lead Marcus Webb: meeting exclusion, harsher reviews than white peers, a comment at the November social about her hair being ‘a lot.’

Attached: a spreadsheet. Nine months of rating comparisons Zara built herself. Same metrics, three white male peers, same desk.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

I read it twice. Once for the data. Once for the fact that she felt she had to build it.

⚖ Regulatory Framework

Under Equality Act 2010 s.136, if there are facts from which a tribunal could decide discrimination occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. This spreadsheet is those facts.

Activity — The Spreadsheet

Six Appraisals. Same Desk.

Six appraisals. Same desk. Same clients. Same quarterly revenue targets. Same output numbers. The only variable is who is being assessed. Flag each appraisal where the rating decisions cannot be explained by performance data alone.

⚑

Zara MensahQ1 2025

Target:£1.2m Actual:£1.34m (112%) Retention:94%

Objective: Meets • Subjective: Developing
"Zara needs to develop her confidence in client-facing situations."

⚑

James ThorntonQ1 2025

Target:£1.2m Actual:£1.28m (107%) Retention:91%

Objective: Meets • Subjective: Strong Performer
"James continues to demonstrate strong commercial instincts."

⚑

Zara MensahQ2 2025

Target:£1.3m Actual:£1.41m (108%) Retention:96%

Objective: Meets • Subjective: Developing
"Good numbers. Would benefit from being more visible rather than relying on written analysis."

⚑

James ThorntonQ2 2025

Target:£1.3m Actual:£1.25m (96%) Retention:89%

Objective: Meets • Subjective: Strong Performer
"Solid quarter. Revenue dip reflects market conditions, not effort."

⚑

Zara MensahQ3 2025

Target:£1.4m Actual:£1.52m (109%) Retention:95%

Objective: Exceeds • Subjective: Meets
"Strong quarter. Could still develop networking at firm events."

⚑

James ThorntonQ3 2025

Target:£1.4m Actual:£1.43m (102%) Retention:92%

Objective: Meets • Subjective: Strong Performer
"Consistent. Being considered for team lead development programme."

Appraisals flagged: 0 / Target: 5

The Investigation Route

Helen Baxter

Chief People Officer

I’ve seen the complaint. Before we escalate this, I think we should consider informal resolution. Marcus brought in three new HNW clients last quarter. We need to be careful how we handle this.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

The spreadsheet is the case, Helen. Not the complaint letter — the spreadsheet.

Your choice

🔍

Formal HR Disciplinary

Escalate to formal process — remove from DE&I, hand to HR with the full evidence pack including the spreadsheet.

Your choice

📊

DE&I-Led Culture Review

Run a DE&I-led culture review — broader than one complaint, examines systemic patterns across the team and division.

Your choice

💬

Informal Mediation

Accept Helen’s recommendation — facilitated conversation between Zara and Marcus, documented outcome, coaching plan.

Consequence

+10 Formal investigation

External investigator appointed. Evidence pack assembled. Marcus formally notified — right to representation, written response, interview scheduled.

Helen Baxter

Chief People Officer

Why did she keep this for nine months?

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

Because she needed nine months of data before anyone would believe her.

⚖ Regulatory Insight

Under PS25/5, firms must record, investigate, and act on non-financial misconduct. Formal investigation with external investigator satisfies this expectation.

Consequence

+6 Culture review

Culture review launched. Nadia controls scope and timeline. Within two weeks, anonymised survey reveals three other analysts with similar patterns — none filed formal grievances. Marcus is not singled out; the review examines the system.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

Told Helen the culture review would find this. She said I was speculating. I was not speculating. I was reading the firm’s own data.

⚖ Regulatory Insight

Under FG20/1, the FCA treats NFM as a regulatory matter. Systemic review demonstrates the firm examining patterns rather than individual cases.

Consequence

−10 Informal mediation

Mediation scheduled for Thursday. Zara is told it will be ‘a conversation.’ She arrives to find Marcus, Helen, and a note-taker. Marcus says he treats everyone the same. The mediator asks Zara if she can ‘see it from his perspective.’ She can. That is not the problem.

⚖ Regulatory Insight

Under Equality Act s.27, subjecting a complainant to detriment for filing a complaint constitutes victimisation. Informal mediation without independent investigation undermines protection and may itself be a detriment.

Activity — Perspective Shift (1 of 2)

Tuesday Morning — Nadia’s View

You are Nadia. Walk Tuesday — meeting, corridor, email chain. Observe what you can see from your desk.

10:00 — Wealth Advisory Team Meeting

Marcus runs it. Asks James and two analysts for Q4 pipeline. Skips Zara. She’s there, notes open. He moves on. Nobody comments.

Nadia thinks: Could be oversight. Could be pattern. The spreadsheet says pattern. The room says normal Tuesday.

11:15 — 4th Floor Corridor

Marcus walking with James toward the client suite. Zara at her desk. She watches them pass. Does not ask where they are going.

Nadia thinks: She used to ask. She stopped in March because the answer was always ‘we’ve got this one covered.’

14:00 — Email Chain

Henderson prep email. Marcus to James, Alicia, Ravi. Zara not copied — though she prepared the original valuation.

Nadia thinks: An oversight happens once. This is the fourth time in her spreadsheet.

Case File

Transition

A normal morning if you are not the person being excluded. Now see the same Tuesday from Zara’s desk.

Activity — Perspective Shift (2 of 2)

Tuesday Morning — Zara’s View

Now you are Zara. Same Tuesday. Same three events. See what Nadia did not.

10:00 — Wealth Advisory Team Meeting

Zara: He asks everyone except me. Again. I prepared notes last night. I catch James’s eye. He looks away. He knows.

What Nadia did not see

In the kitchen beforehand: Marcus to Alicia, laughing — ‘Zara’s sent another novel. Has anyone read the whole thing?’ Alicia didn’t laugh. She also didn’t say anything.

11:15 — 4th Floor Corridor

Zara: They walk past my desk. Henderson meeting. I was on the original invite, removed last week. I checked the edit history. Marcus removed me.

What Nadia did not see

The edit history showing Zara was actively removed — not omitted, removed. Screenshot in the spreadsheet, tab 3.

14:00 — Email Chain

Zara: Ravi forwards me the Henderson prep email. ‘FYI — thought you should see this.’ No comment. Everyone on the desk knows. Nobody says it.

What Nadia did not see

Ravi has been quietly forwarding for months. Ally, but too junior to challenge Marcus — he’s on a fixed-term contract.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

I went back and read tab 3. Calendar edits. Forwarded emails. The kitchen conversation. I had the right data and the wrong angle.

Marcus — Testimony

Activity — Marcus’s Account

Accurate, Reframe, or Contradicted?

Marcus Webb

Team Lead, Wealth Advisory

Thanks for the chance to respond. I treat everyone on my team equally. Always have.

Using the data and Zara’s perspective, classify each statement as ACCURATE, SELF-SERVING REFRAME, or CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE.

I run a high-performing desk. Same standards for everyone. I don’t lower them, I don’t raise them.

Equal in his framing, unequal in the data — identical metrics, different subjective ratings. Equal standards through unequal judgment is still discrimination under s.13.

Zara is capable. Her work is thorough — sometimes more than the task needs.

Reframes thoroughness as a fault. He called her analysis ‘novels’ in the kitchen. The appraisal’s ‘relies on written analysis’ is the same critique in formal dress.

I brought three HNW clients in last quarter. My commercial record speaks for itself.

True — and irrelevant. Conduct, not commercial capability. Good numbers don’t insulate against discrimination findings.

The hair comment was a compliment. It looked ‘a lot’, so I said so. My wife comments on colleagues’ hair all the time.

Under s.26 the test is purpose OR effect of violating dignity. Intent isn’t the test. His wife is irrelevant.

I’ve never excluded Zara. Missing invites are admin oversights — my EA runs my calendar.

Calendar edit history (tab 3) shows Marcus personally removed Zara from the Henderson invite. Not his EA. Timestamped.

I coach my son’s rugby team. I mentor juniors. I’m not the person they’re describing.

True — and irrelevant. Personal-life character references don’t negate workplace conduct patterns.

The Data

Helen Baxter

Chief People Officer

The spreadsheet is compiled by the complainant. It is not independent data. If it goes into the formal evidence pack, it becomes a litigation document.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

If it does not go in, and Zara goes to tribunal, and her barrister asks why the firm had this data and did not include it — what do we say then?

Your choice

📊

Include Formally

Enter the spreadsheet into the formal evidence pack — it is the strongest evidence of systemic disparity.

Your choice

📄

Use Informally

Use the spreadsheet to guide investigation questions but keep it informal — investigate patterns through HR channels.

Your choice

🔒

Hold Back

Tell Zara to hold back the spreadsheet for now — ‘let the process work first’ before introducing complainant-compiled evidence.

Consequence

+12 Evidence included

Spreadsheet entered into evidence. External investigator verifies every data point against HR records. Marcus’s representative challenges methodology. Investigator notes: ‘The methodology is the firm’s own appraisal system. There is no methodological challenge to make.’ Zara is told her data is in the file. She does not smile. She exhales.

⚖ Regulatory Insight

Under Equality Act s.136, comparative performance data establishing a pattern shifts the burden of proof. The firm’s own appraisal data — compiled by the complainant or not — is evidence.

Consequence

+2 Guided investigation

Investigator asks HR to produce the same comparison independently. HR takes two weeks. The data confirms the same pattern — but the delay means Marcus’s interview happens before the independent analysis is complete. He is asked about ‘concerns’ rather than confronted with data.

Consequence

−8 Evidence withheld

Zara is asked to trust a process that has not yet earned her trust. She agrees. Investigation proceeds without the strongest evidence. Findings are ‘inconclusive — insufficient evidence of pattern.’ When Zara’s barrister later asks in tribunal why the firm’s Head of DE&I advised the complainant to withhold her own evidence, there is no good answer.

Activity — The Reputation Meter

The Cost of Being Right

Your decisions have moved two credibility bars that pull in opposite directions. This is the quiet part nobody says in a DE&I strategy deck.

Board Confidence in DE&I 50%

The CEO hired you. The board gave you a quarterly slot. Thorough investigation costs political capital.

Complainant Trust in DE&I 50%

Zara filed this grievance to you, not to HR. The next person considering filing is watching what happens.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

The CEO called yesterday. ‘How is the Wealth Advisory thing going?’ He called it ‘the Wealth Advisory thing.’ Zara texted this morning. One word: ‘Update?’ I cannot keep both of them confident in what I am doing.

The Offer

Helen returns from the CEO with an offer for Zara: a promoted role in Private Clients — better title, 15% pay increase, fresh start. The implicit deal: take the promotion, the grievance is resolved informally, Marcus stays.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

So a role that has existed since Q3 was offered to Zara the morning after the investigation evidence was compiled. Helen — you know what that looks like.

Your choice

⚠

Flag as Potential Victimisation

Advise Zara the offer may constitute victimisation under s.27 and document the offer as evidence in the investigation file.

Your choice

📋

Present Neutrally

Present the offer without your professional assessment of the s.27 risk — respect her autonomy to decide.

Your choice

✍

Recommend She Takes It

Recommend Zara accepts — pragmatically, better outcome than a protracted investigation that may not result in Marcus’s removal.

Consequence

The Outcome

Activity — The Cascade

Your Decisions, Downstream

Your three decisions cascade outward. Four people. Four outcomes. The next person at Ashworth Rathbone who considers filing a grievance is already watching.

Zara Mensah

Marcus Webb

The DE&I Function

The Next Person Who Considers Filing

Module complete. Continue when you're ready.

The Pattern

Investigation Rating

Six months. Independent review surfaced three more rating-pattern cases across Wealth Advisory. Board acted — appraisals rebuilt with blind calibration panels. Marcus resigned. Budget restored.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

Zara is still here. Three days from home. She said the office feels different. I asked if that was good. She said: ‘It’s quieter. Not sure that’s the same thing.’

She still has the spreadsheet. She’ll delete it when she stops needing to check.

The pattern was the evidence. The system was the defendant.

Key Learnings

◆ Equality Act s.136 shifts the burden of proof once a pattern is established. Complainant-compiled data still counts if the underlying data is the firm’s.

◆ Investigate what you can’t see from your desk, not just what you can.

◆ A promotion during an active grievance may be victimisation under s.27, regardless of intent.

◆ DE&I credibility with complainants and with the board pull opposite ways. That tension is the function working.

The Transfer

Investigation Rating

Six months. Zara’s in Private Clients. Better title, better pay. File: ‘resolved — transfer accepted.’ Marcus made desk head in January. Thursday 09:40, Nadia’s inbox.

FROM: Amara Osei (Webb Desk)

SUBJECT: Confidential

‘I’ve noticed a pattern in my reviews compared to colleagues on the same desk. I’ve been keeping a record for four months...’

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

Reads like Zara’s. Same care, same precision. Four months — Amara saw what happened and started earlier.

The individual was accommodated. The system was not examined.

Key Learnings

◆ Transferring a complainant resolves the grievance. It doesn’t address the pattern.

◆ Under PS25/5, firms must record and act on NFM. ‘Resolved via transfer’ without examining conduct may not satisfy that.

◆ A promotion presented neutrally without flagging s.27 victimisation risk withholds judgment from the person who needs it most.

◆ DE&I that picks institutional credibility over human credibility survives. Its purpose does not.

The Departure

Investigation Rating

Three months. Zara resigned in February. Three-sentence email to HR. Left on a Friday.

Four weeks later. Tribunal claim filed. Direct discrimination (s.13), harassment (s.26), victimisation (s.27). Rep: Cloisters Chambers.

Exhibit A: the spreadsheet. Nine months of comparative data from the firm’s own appraisal system — the one Nadia told her to hold back.

Nadia Okafor-Williams

Head of DE&I

The bundle is on my desk. Zara’s witness statement quotes me — the bit where I told her to let the process work. The process didn’t. That’s in the bundle too.

Containment was not protection. It was delay with a witness statement.

Key Learnings

◆ Advising a complainant to withhold evidence undermines the investigation and her legal position.

◆ Under s.136, comparative data shifts the burden of proof. The firm had it and didn’t include it. That choice is now in the tribunal bundle.

◆ Informal mediation of formal discrimination complaints in regulated firms invites tribunal claims and FCA scrutiny.

◆ DE&I credibility dies when the function tells complainants to accommodate the system rather than the other way round.