Mandy Perry, a partner in the London office, is a member of the Employment
Group. Mandy’s practice includes acting in high value litigation disputes in the
High Court and Employment Tribunal where she has gained particular expertise in claims involving whistleblowing, discrimination and post termination restrictions.
Mandy specialises in all aspects of contentious and non-contentious employment law and advises clients across diverse sectors with particular emphasis on corporate and technology clients.
Mandy advises on the strategy and handling of redundancies, wrongful and unfair dismissals, TUPE, cross-border disputes, financial services remuneration issues, data protection and a full spectrum of employment-related legal issues.
Legal 500 describe Mandy as "a joy to work with, very experienced and knowledgeable". She is an accomplished speaker and regularly provides client training on legal updates, diversity matters and presents on all aspects of the employment relationship.
Some of Mandy's most notable recent engagements including the following:
- Obtained various disclosure orders and a springboard injunction for a client against a former employee and a third party company, preventing them from dealing with each other or with the client’s products for 3 years.
- Advised and represented a leading European bank, in relation to the defence and favourable tribunal outcome of an unfair dismissal and race, age and sex discrimination claim.
- Advised a European bank in relation to employee aspects of an asset management merger including implementing a complete harmonisation of terms and conditions by way of dismissal and re-engagement.
- Advised a leading global recycling and manufacturing company on a collective consultation exercise involving a large-scale redundancy, closure and voluntary benefits reduction exercise in two of its UK sites.
- Advised a leading Scandinavian bank on a recent merger, relocation, harmonisation of terms and restructuring exercise.
- Advised and represented a leading European bank, in relation to the defence and favourable settlement of an unfair dismissal, age and sex discrimination claim.
- Advised and represented a leading financial institution in relation to grievance and disciplinary proceedings involving whistleblowing, personal injury and discrimination allegations and successfully avoiding any resulting claim.
- Advised leading American investment bank in relation to a stress claim brought by an employee.
- Defended an international software company against a multi-strand discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claim by a vexatious litigant.
- Defending a high profile fund management firm against a sex and race discrimination, sexual harassment, victimisation and bonus claim by an existing employee, achieving a swift and very favourable settlement.
- Advised a multi-national money transfer business throughout an extremely complex expenses investigation and gross misconduct dismissal, together with detailed grievance and whistle-blowing investigations from two employees, successfully settling one (on very favourable terms) and achieving a complete dismissal of claims against the other after an appeal to the EAT.
- Advised both Stripe and Goodwater
Capital on a $93 million Series D financing round in Monzo.
- Advised CVC Capital on its acquisition of Zabka Polska.
- Advised Cloudreach in the acquisition of a majority stake in the company by Blackstone Group.
It is increasingly common that there are disputes with employees at the end of employment about whether or not they have taken or retained an employer’s confidential information. Most employers in the UK have a provision relating to the use (and misuse) of confidential information and a requirement to return all company property at the end of employment in the contract of employment. There is also a common law requirement for employees not to use their employer’s genuine confidential information after they have left employment, so even if you missed the boat on the contract, employers in the UK have some protection.
On September 6, 2017, Orrick announced the launch of its innovative online automated GDPR Readiness Assessment Tool. The tool helps organizations assess their state of readiness with the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that comes into effect on 25 May 2018. The tool segments the GDPR into 14 workable themes and takes users through a series of questions relating to each theme. READ MORE
We set out below our best guess on where this leaves employees, management and HR in the UK.
Firstly as we have all heard repeatedly today, nothing is going to change immediately and that is the same for employment law. It will be years before any changes are made and for the time being, everything remains the same and critically, no one has to leave.
Much of our employment law is just that – employment law driven solely by the UK. We then have laws that have been enacted into UK law as a result of European directives – so those laws are the ones that may, at some point in the future, be targeted. Our guess at Orrick is that changes where they happen will be focused on consultation rights, holiday pay and working time. Worker involvement has never had the same traction in the UK that it has with our European counterparts and the UK has always viewed employee consultation with a degree of skepticism. For this reason, we think it may eventually be a focus for change.
In the heady days of the Coalition Government, gender pay gap reporting started to get some traction on the political agenda. This led to the 2011 initiative ‘Think, Act, Report’ which encouraged employers to voluntarily publish gender pay gap information. According to a Guardian article in August 2014, citing a parliamentary question from the shadow Equalities Minster at the time, 200 companies signed up to the initiative but only four of those ever published any data. £90,000 of public money later and we were clearly no further on.
Following months of waiting the UK Government has finally published its draft regulations on the new “gender pay gap reporting” requirements in the UK. On publication of the draft regulations, the UK Government has asked one final consultation question: “What, if any, modifications should be made to these draft regulations?” – And so it would appear that the draft regulations are nearing but possibly not quite in final form, pending any pertinent responses received.
Relevant firms in the UK have until March 7, 2016 to appoint a “whistleblowers’ champion,” who then has until September 7, 2016 to oversee their firm’s readiness for the new whistleblowing regime.
The new whistleblowing regime: why make the change?
Since the 2013 Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommendations were published in the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has been examining ways to ensure that individuals working in financial services feel able and encouraged to speak up when they have concerns to avoid the same financial scandals of the past.
Asia Employment Law Update
Proposed Regulations May Complicate Reductions in Force in China
On December 31st, 2014, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (“MOHRSS”) issued a notice to solicit public opinions on the draft Regulations on Personnel Cutbacks by Enterprises (“Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations set out detailed implementing rules for “mass layoffs” (defined under the Labor Contract Law as being a layoff of more than 10% of the workforce or more than 20 employees) and, if adopted in their current form, will further complicate the process for conducting reductions in force in China.
You know how you wait for ages for a bus to come (well, we do in Europe) and then three come along at once? Well it’s a little like that in the data privacy arena right now, as far as transfer of international personal data is concerned, anyhow. For years, there has been a reasonably steady and fairly consistent position from the various bodies responsible for this complicated and often confusing area of law, but in the last few weeks we have been hit with a significant change overnight and we are all left wondering where to get off.
In the recent case of Ramphal v. Department of Transport (DoT) the tricky question of where HR should draw the line in a disciplinary matter between guiding the decision-maker on the right decision, and making that decision for them, was considered. The results weren’t great for the HR manager involved in this case…
Imagine that you have a senior employee who you have decided (for whatever reason) that you do not want anymore but you do not want to pay out his 12-month notice period. As an ingenious attempt to get around that, you instruct forensic investigators to carry out a ‘fishing expedition’ to try and find some dirt on him that will justify you summarily dismissing him, rather than paying out what he is owed under his contract. Imagine that your luck is in and you do indeed find some dirt but that the dirt you find is five year old dirt. Would you think that the High Court is going to accept this approach and agree that you don’t have to pay the notice period?