A judge has ruled that Jessica Varnish can sue British Cycling and UK Sport for sex discrimination, detriment suffered from whistleblowing, victimisation and unfair dismissal. According to the BBC, UK Sport had applied for a strike-out order to have her case dismissed.
Varnish was dropped from the Olympic programme in April 2016 and alleged that technical director Shane Sutton had told her to ‘go and have a baby’ when informing her of this.
Further allegations followed. While a British Cycling investigation cleared Sutton on eight out of nine charges of discriminatory conduct and bullying, the subsequent independent review into the culture of British Cycling was initially scathing in its assessment of how this process was carried out.
The draft version stated that British Cycling’s board had “reversed” some of the findings of the internal investigation – which was carried out by its grievance officer – and “sanitised” the subsequent report.
The termination of Varnish’s funding on the Olympic programme was also described as an “act of retaliation” for her criticism of team management after the failure to qualify the women’s track sprint team for the Rio Olympics.
The power of strike-out is used sparingly by the courts – and only for plain and obvious cases.
UK Sport is also said to have applied for a costs order and a deposit order, which would have meant Varnish’s assets would have been seized pending the case – but again this is only granted when a case is considered weak.
A judge dismissed the applications on Monday, allowing Varnish to proceed towards an employment tribunal.
If she continues with her case, a preliminary hearing in April 2018 will determine whether or not she was effectively an employee of UK Sport and British Cycling.
Currently, athletes are not considered members of staff and so UK Sport do not have to pay pension and National Insurance costs. If the court rules that Varnish was an employee, it would potentially have far-reaching implications.
A source close to Varnish said: “She’s not doing this for money. She’s frustrated that neither UK Sport nor British Cycling have changed the grey situation that athletes still remain in.
“Athletes still have no real rights, no pensions, no grievance and whistleblower procedures, and no course of action, outside of civil action. There are some really deep-rooted issues which she’s passionate about.”
Last month, British Cycling CEO Julie Harrington said that Jessica Varnish “would be welcomed back” onto the Podium Programme if she could meet the required performance standards and credited her with being “a catalyst for this change” at the organisation.
31 thoughts on “Jessica Varnish to sue British Cycling and UK Sport”
So if Jess wins all athletes
So if Jess wins all athletes become employees, which is untenable for sporting associations, federations etc because they are not employers in this way. Thus they’ll have to stop employing (funding) athletes, nice one Jess! Just about to destroy elite sports funding…
FatBoyW wrote:
It isn’t untenable at all. Most professional sportspeople are employees, usually of a club. Including most professional cyclists. All federations employ people.
Some sports don’t have a professional club network, but that doesn’t make the sportspeople fundamentally different to those that do. It is an interesting case. If federations, etc, end up being employers of the sportspeople, it won’t be fundamentally different to them being employers of the coaches and other technical staff. I guess a key area of concern will be how to release employees when you are simultaneously tasked with choosing the best performing ones for competition purposes.
Note also that in track cycling the federations are providing funding to the athletes already. They just aren’t calling it a salary.
FatBoyW wrote:
The athletes who are part of the olympic development programme (the academy and the olympic podium programme) are essentially employees, even if it is described differently. They are paid by british cycling. They are managed by British cycling. They have contracts that dictate terms and conditions that are equivalent to any standard employment contract. This is why it is going to an employment tribunal.
None of this will do anything to, as you hyperbolically put it, destroy elite sports funding. Like any other employer they need to have very clear performance management conditions and processes that continued employment is dependent on meeting. The JV position would seem to be that British Cycling have ignored their own proper processes and refused to provide the data supporting their decisions. If you employ someone in a standard company and try to dismiss them based on failure to meet performance targets, you would have to demonstrate that the employee did miss those targets and that they were responsible for those targets being missed. This is a really basic part of employment rights.
Some sports federations operate different models – usually those sports where there is significant professional funding at a team level and the demands of international competition do not take the employee away from performing for their team (e.g. football, where the funding at club level is obviously significant and the calendar is coordinated so that international matches do not clash with league matches – at least at the level of the premiership).
If you look at cricket on the other hand, the England and Wales Cricket Board is very clearly an employer of the players. They have central contracts from which they can be dismissed and from which they can quit. Part of this is because the international calendar means that players have to spend significant parts of their season away from their home domestic teams.
Just because this is sport at an international level does not make it any different, fundementally, from any other normal employer employee relationship. Employees have legally protected rights and have legal grievance processes that they can go through, which is exactly what seems to be happening here
If she’d shown as much
If she’d shown as much passion and fight on the track as she does for retribution, she may not have been dropped!
Quote:
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I’m sorry but Jess Varnish has just lost any support I had for her. I understand quite well the frustrations of trying to get things fixed in a system that doesn’t want to fix them, but suing is quite another step and not one I support.
This could be the thin end of
This could be the thin end of the wedge to dismantle all funded athlete progams in the UK. Sport and the ability to do it “full time” has been viewed as a priveleged opportunity for those talented and gifted enough. This has previously operated on an unwritten set of rules. Considering it as a job puts a new perspective and set of obligations in the mix for all parties.
Not to worry. I’m sure BC can
Not to worry. I’m sure BC can then make the money back by screwing even more cash out of its members
The problem is, it’s not like there is much alternative in the form of racing events.
This has the potential to
This has the potential to have as much impact as the Bosman ruling did in football. Sport will find a way to cope, as was the case with that ruling.
A family member of mine was in a elite athlete program, the level of employment protection was low but bloody hell they took care of him whilst he was in the program. Harley Street specialists and private surgery to fix a serious back injury and 18 months of rehabilitation to get him back to elite level. Retired now due to that same injury (was basically along the lines of “if you injure it again you might not walk again”) and it is a bit of a cliff when you leave the program.
I’m surprised other EU athletes haven’t pushed this angle yet as there’s definitely a strong case that they should be treated as employees. Is it really any different to, for example, members of an orchestra or theatre company? They’re certainly not freelancers/contractors.
Agree it’s a thin end of the
Dislike and unsure. We need change, but is this the right way about it?
“British Cycling CEO lauded
“British Cycling CEO lauded Varnish as “catalyst for change” earlier this month” …made to eat his own words.
BC brought this on themselves and they’re still trying to brush it under the carpet – might be a hard lesson to learn depite all the talk of a new start and increased transparency.
The outcomes of this could
The outcomes of this could indeed bring some positives and we are certainly looking at the thin end of the wedge, also has the potential to bring many negatives.. Football and its academies are under much scrutiny at the moments, some clubs use it to scoop up the talent (potentially stopping them progressing better elsewhere), some as a business model in itself (sell one for a lot of money) and some don’t bother running them anymore due to cost (sod the community).
I think there’s a need to have something clear and transparent, people need to know what they’re signing up for. You can give your best years (say 13-21) to a programme, not quite cut it and be forced into the big bad world, furthermore the lack of structure, a goal et al can lead to depression and such like. Does this also mean there needs to be a clearly defined template for what you have to achieve to remain in as this seems to be the problem Varnish had.
The issue with sport is you can have 2 participants that train the same, have very similar numbers etc. A coach may just fancy (hmm word choice) one over the other, maybe they’re nicer maybe because they’re mentally tougher, even horrible. Who knows, how do you measure it and what is the comeback on it? Though I feel some good could come from this, the way it has been brought about makes me feel it is retribution rather than being a desire to change things for the better. When this is the case, usually nobody wins.
alansmurphy wrote:
Hardly just in sport – if you have two equally qualified, equally experienced candidates for one post or one promotion in any job there’s always going to be a subjective element to decision-making, however much it gets dressed up.
oldstrath wrote:
Indeed, which is why you’re supposed to document the decision-making process, and why even candidates have a legal right to see what you’ve written during an interview.
She asked to see the evidence that BC based their decision on (BC having said it was based on the numbers). BC couldn’t/wouldn’t provide it. It’s fucking amateur hour, and a kick up the arse like this might drag them into the 21st century*
*anyone tired of me moaning about Cookson on whichever thread he is mentioned… this is one of the main reasons. Years of blowing his own trumpet for dragging cycling up by its bootstraps, and it turns out that the ‘governance’ installed on his watch wouldn’t be fit for purpose in a corner shop.
This isn’t the end of elite
This isn’t the end of elite cycling/funding. They will just move to a cricket style Central Contract, you may well be employed, but year on year. I support her if she has been bullied, but one person’s bullying is another’s inspirational management. The sort of things that gets said in a football changing room might make sensitive cyclists wilt. The same question keeps coming back to my mind; was she good enough? Shane Sutton is now off to China for opening his mouth and letting the first thing come out; what he said was the stupidest way of letting an athlete go, even if it was the right time to drop her.
Good for her. To use the
Good for her. To use the angle of costs award against her was just to frighten her to drop the case. I hope she brings some valuable worth while change to the sport. I suspect her own career is over for the foreseeable future, a shame.
If Varnish wins, I shall be
If Varnish wins, I shall be canceling my British Cycling membership I am NOT wasting MY money to give fat payouts to people with a politicaly correct axe to grind about being told they could not cut it. The new CEO is as good as saying we welcome being sued THAT is NOT the function of a CEO.
WashoutWheeler wrote:
Well that’ll make her change her mind. I hope she doesn’t see this post.
WashoutWheeler wrote:
I don’t think you understand, you thick twat.
WashoutWheeler wrote:
Are you confusing this site with that of The Daily Heil?
@Paulrattew the athletes are
@Paulrattew the athletes are funded, not employed. (Shortcomings of BC’s processes notwithstanding, which they have been hauled over the coals for).
If there is some judgement of ‘unfair dismissal’ then that’s likely to set a precedent to change the nature of the relationship between athlete and sports body. One consequence would be to increase costs and therefore reduce about of funding available to be used on the athletes.
Oh and Jess may still not get back on to the programme if she doesn’t make the grade. So they’d be no winners.
700c wrote:
You don’t get to decide who is an employee by calling it funding rather than employment. You can’t get round employment law and tax obligations with words, much as the likes of Uber would wish.
This whole case has the potential to be very disruptive, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should pretend that everything is fine. Apart from anything else, it might have woken HMRC to the tax and NI issues.
Edgeley wrote:
Correct, a court would do that in exceptional circumstances with the resulting implications for both parties.
(Although paties will have acknowledged that it is not a contact of employment at the time of signing and this wasn’t raised as a problem by JV until after she was dropped from the team).
Comparisons to Uber and avoiding tax obligations I don’t think are relevant in this case as it’s a totally different situation, (UKC a not for profit charity/ BC the sports governing body vs a commercial organisation trying to avoid paying tax).
Nobody is pretending the situation at British cycling was/ is fine, I’m not sure why you think anyone did. If JV has been mistreated they should be held to account.
Usual mix of drivel from
Usual mix of drivel from people who would just roll over and accept being treated outrageously by an employer. Thankfully Some people like Jess Varnish have the balls to fight their corner. This problem is all BC’s own work; if funding for athletes is screwed up it is down to BC’s unreasonable actions not JV for challenging them. Baa! Baa! Who let those sheep in?
Legin wrote:
You’ve just said she had the balls to fight her corner displaying your inherent sexism, I feel you shouldn’t be on these boards with such an attitude and your egotistical dismissal of others opinions is Sutton-esque. Shame on you!
alansmurphy wrote:
You’ve just said she had the balls to fight her corner displaying your inherent sexism, I feel you shouldn’t be on these boards with such an attitude and your egotistical dismissal of others opinions is Sutton-esque. Shame on you!— Legin Now that is a sad response!
Legin wrote:
And yours is the response of someone made to look a twat!
Why did you suggest a woman had balls? Are you not suggesting that the male appendage is a signal of strength in your half baked ‘argument’?
And calling those viewpoints opposing yours is drivel, just how arrogant are you?
Bloody snowflakes.
There, I did it!
Legin wrote:
Usual Internet straw man binary argument *sigh
700c wrote:
That is because the whole debacle is binary; there are no areas of grey; it’s black or white; right or wrong. Anyone who believes otherwise has been duped by the constant stream of misinformation put out by British Cycling. Jess Varnish was not sacked because of her performances; everything else is just noise.
have we got this far and no
have we got this far and no-one has said snowflake! im shocked
SteveAustin wrote:
Making a big deal out of something a cycle team owner said about one of his former employees (Let’s call him el pistolero) that wasn’t particularly outrageous nor in fact inaccurate is being a snowflake, calling someone a ‘cunt’ for having the temerity to point out that said faux outrage was the rantings of a snowflake just made the point even more, taking action against an employer who in your eyes treated you unfairly and cost you your job/wages is not the action of a snowflake.
Stop being a snowflake.
Stop being a snowflake.