Employment Status - case law update - Could you be an employee?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) in Varnish v British Cycling has upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that the claimant, a professional sportsperson was not an ‘employee’ or a ‘worker’ based on the facts of her case.  

This meant that she was barred from bringing claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.

Ms Varnish, a professional cyclist, had a contract with British Cycling which was not renewed after she failed to qualify for the Olympics in 2016. She alleged that a director of British Cycling had told her to “go have a baby”.  She brought claims for, amongst other things, unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. 

Dismissing the appeal, the EAT held that due to the lack of remuneration from British Cycling to Ms Varnish (payment was received from sponsorships and lottery grants), the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Ms Varnish could not be held to be an ‘employee’ or ‘worker’.  Consequently, she could not pursue her unfair dismissal or the discrimination claim

This case continues to remind us of the test that Employment Tribunals use to consider the status of an individual (one factor being the mode of remuneration) and of the particular importance that each case will turn on its own facts. 

For more information or to speak with Roy Magara, a specialist employment lawyer, please call 01869 325 883 or email roy@magaralaw.co.uk.