City banker couple fined £7,000 for ‘injury to emotions’

City banker couple fined £7,000 for ‘injury to emotions’

A pair of City bankers were sentenced to pay their former nanny £7,000 after they reported her to the police on suspicions that she had fabricated her resume.

After talking to an officer about their worries that Ilkay Cetin was not a “suitable” person to have taken care of their two small children, Melanie and Stephen Griffiths were found guilty of victimizing Ilkay Cetin.

The pair, who were managing directors and private bankers at the US financial powerhouse JP Morgan, made the call after Ms Cetin, who is of Kurdish descent, accused them of prejudice when they were employed there.

An employment tribunal heard that Mrs. Griffiths started her own inquiry into the nanny after Ms. Cetin filed a lawsuit against the bankers, alleging that she had been subjected to “emotional torment” and “slavery.”

The tribunal was informed that as part of her investigations, the woman acquired testimonials from her past employers and contacted the police to do back-checks on her DBS certificate.

This prompted her to notify police that she “had grounds to be skeptical” about Ms Cetin’s suitability to care for her children, the panel heard.

The police subsequently informed Mrs. Griffiths that “there was some question mark over (the nanny), and had she contacted them before engaging (her), they would have recommended against it,” the tribunal was informed.

When she learned that the pair had talked to the police, Ms. Cetin filed a victimization lawsuit against them, alleging that the couple had assaulted the “heart of her personality and principles.”

And the panel upheld that portion of her claim, so she now obtains compensation.

Ms. Cetin was employed by the pair as a nanny between December 2017 and May 2018 to care after their two small children, it was revealed during the central London court.

The panel was informed that the nanny’s employment ended on what seemed to be amicable terms, with the couple urging her to stay in contact with the kids and employing her for an extra two days in May.

However, the tribunal heard that Ms. Cetin “harbored worries and resentments” about certain of the Griffiths’ “behavior and words to her.”

The panel was informed that the nanny filed her first claim not long after her employment came to an end.

The panel heard that Ms. Cetin filed a number of claims, including ones for “unfair dismissal, improper deductions from salary, racism, discrimination, emotional torture, and slavery.”

In response to the legal proceedings, Mrs. Griffiths started her own research.

She requested references from the nanny’s previous employers and educational institutions because she thought she had found irregularities in her CV, the panel heard.

The panel was informed that she phoned the police in August 2018 to report having “cause to be skeptical” about Ms Cetin’s suitability to care for her children.

The panel expressed “surprise and worry” at the “advice” since it had been delivered in an informal way and the police had reportedly warned her there was a “question mark” over Ms. Cetin.

Due to the serious “damage to emotions” that Mrs. Griffiths’ interaction with the police had brought about, Ms. Cetin added it to her legal case in November 2019, the tribunal heard.

The tribunal was informed that Ms. Cetin created a website in January 2020 and uploaded details regarding child abuse unconnected to the Griffiths’ case as well as her continuing legal battle with them.

The nanny testified before the tribunal that she posted information about the couple on her website to defend herself from false accusations.

According to the panel, Ms. Cetin made sure that Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths’ complete names were included so that anybody doing a name search on the internet would be promptly sent to her website.

The website was discovered by Mrs. Griffiths soon after it was founded when she was doing a search for herself, the tribunal was informed.

According to the panel, the couple started to worry that anybody looking up their names before hiring one of them would be routed to the website and discover the allegations regarding child abuse.

The tribunal heard that Mrs. Griffiths denounced the website to the police because she thought it amounted to harassment but was informed it was a civil issue.

The tribunal determined that Ms Cetin forwarded links to the court rulings related to their legal dispute to Mr. Griffiths’ workplace in November 2020. The email was ‘clearly aimed to humiliate’ him, the panel ruled.

Later that month, the police got in touch with Ms. Cetin to let her know that if the behavior persisted, it “may need investigation and perhaps arrest for the crime of harassment,” the tribunal was informed.

The nanny said before the tribunal that she felt as if the “core of her personality and principles” had been assaulted since she had been reported to the police, which implied that she “may not be an acceptable person to care after children.”

The tribunal was informed that Ms. Cetin has subsequently made failed applications for a number of positions, including two with the police and one as a civil service translator.

The nanny’s accusations of racial harassment and discrimination against the couple were rejected. Her victimization claim, however, was maintained in light of Mrs. Griffiths’s police report about her.

While the nanny’s reporting to the police was a “one off” incident, Judge Oliver Segal found that it “generated substantial shock and distress immediately and an enduring feeling of fear in reference to future job possibilities.”

The tribunal gave Ms. Cetin a £7,000 amount as emotional harm compensation.

Both Melanie and Stephen Griffiths now work for private investment services firms Equiom and Sarnac Partners after leaving JP Morgan.

»City banker couple fined £7,000 for ‘injury to emotions’«

↯↯↯Read More On The Topic On TDPel Media ↯↯↯

Also On TDPel Media