The Employment Appeal Tribunal ('EAT') in Varnish v British Cycling has upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that a professional sportsperson (in these circumstances) is not an 'employee' or a 'worker'. This meant that the Claimant was unable to bring claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
The Claimant, Ms Varnish, is a well-known gold medal winning professional cyclist. She had a contract with British Cycling which was not renewed after she failed to qualify for the Olympics in 2016. It was alleged a director of British Cycling told her to "go have a baby". Ms Varnish brought claims for, amongst other things, unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
The EAT considered the employment status of Ms Varnish. They concluded that due to the lack of remuneration from British Cycling to Ms Varnish, and that payment was instead given 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'. As a result, she could not pursue either unfair dismissal or the discrimination claim, as the discrimination arose outside of an employment relationship.
This case follows from a string of recent high-profile Employment Tribunal cases considering the employment status of individuals and highlighted that each case will turn on its own individual facts. Had there been more indicators of an employment relationship in this case, Ms Varnish could have very well been found to be an employee. Employers should continue to review the employment status of their workforce and ensure individuals are being provided with the statutory rights and payments they are entitled to receive.
Originally published 21 August, 2020
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
