E-Paper
'Incredibly lazy woman' accused of poor work, sleeping at desk wins unfair dismissal case in the UK
The judge said the company did not take proper steps to manage performance concerns or resolve a personality clash.
Prefer HTon Google
A British AI company director who was called an “incredibly lazy woman” and accused of sleeping at her desk recently won an unfair dismissal case in the UK.
Dr Dan Luo, 46, was criticised by fellow directors of a British AI startup over her work performance and commitment. An employment tribunal ruled that the company had unfairly dismissed her by leaving her in a “limbo situation”.
Luo, who previously worked as a medical doctor in China, moved to the UK in 2020. A month later, in October, she joined Blue Strawberry AI, formerly known as Canterbury AI, a small startup specialising in media management and marketing. She had also made a significant financial investment in the company and became its shareholder, director and employee.
According to the employment tribunal, the company knew that Luo had no prior business experience when she joined. However, concerns about her work performance began emerging in February 2022.
Wesley Baker, another director of the company, emailed Luo in February 2022, raising concerns about errors in her work. Three months later, the two discussed her performance and alleged use of work hours for non-work-related activities. Baker subsequently wrote to Pall Mall Investments, the organisation involved in placing Luo’s investment in the company, expressing concerns about her contribution.
In the email, he described her work commitment as being at the level of a “school leaver or a school apprentice”. “The level of work commitment is that of a school leaver or a school apprentice, but even this is generous, as it is so poor,” he wrote.
“In all my years in business, I have never encountered such a low level of skill and dedication; also, we have an issue where even outside trainers have commented on her level and standard of work. She is the bottom line, incredibly lazy woman, and I have this confirmed by others who are external and trained her,” Baker added.
In July 2022, Baker sent another email directly to Luo, accusing her of sleeping at her desk, leaving work early and taking too long to complete tasks. “I have personally seen you sleeping at your desk, laying down at your desk, leaving early often and most importantly taking an age to do any work and at a standard that is extremely poor,” he wrote.
“What I say now is very important; I would personally be embarrassed to take a salary if I had contributed to the level of what you have since September 2020. You have been provided plenty of opportunities and kindness to develop your role within the company both efficiently and to a high standard; instead, you have failed in every single element so far to deliver a level of competency or professionalism,” Baker added.
He also told her to “pull yourself together” and start acting as a professional director. “You have been a serious financial hindrance to the company for a long time,” he said.
(Also Read: Goldman Sachs VP wins £1.45 million after being fired on parental leave, bank ‘strongly disagrees’ with decision)
What did the judge say?
Following some time off, Luo replied to Baker’s email, expressing disappointment over what she described as personal attacks. Baker said he was disappointed by the tone of her response and that he would no longer work with her.
A meeting was subsequently held in September 2022 without Luo present. She was informed that, as the relationship had broken down, she would be removed as a board director, although not as a legal director. In April 2023, Luo noticed that a termination of director appointment form had been uploaded to Companies House and believed her employment had also been terminated.
Employment Judge Gemma Cawthray, at the London South Employment Tribunal, ruled that Luo had been unfairly dismissed. The judge said the company had failed to take proper steps to address its concerns about Luo’s performance or resolve the apparent personality clash between her and Baker.
“In essence, the [company] left [her] in a limbo situation,” the judge said.
She further ruled that the company’s failure to respond fully to Luo’s solicitor, its decision to remove her from Companies House and the non-payment of her wages indicated that it intended to end the employment relationship by April 2023.
The tribunal also found that the company had breached its contract by failing to provide notice pay and making unauthorised wage deductions amounting to £4,333.
Compensation for unfair dismissal is yet to be determined.
