DS Forums

 
 

Ex-Apprentice winner Stella English sues Alan Sugar (& has now lost)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2013, 13:52
Atlantic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London
Posts: 906
I always thought the prize was a 1 year conreact job at £100,000, not a permie job.
Exactly. The £100,000 salary is the prize for winning The Apprentice and after a year you are released from the contract. Unfortunately Stella English actually believed the job was real, which reveals an astonishingly high level of naivety.
Atlantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-04-2013, 13:54
SnrDev
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
Doh - you've changed the thread title and given the result away. I was going to watch it on the news later.
SnrDev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 13:56
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 25,845
I thought Stella came across as a decent sort when watching the programme. And, someone who genuinely wanted to advance her career after creating one from scratch. So a token job would not have had much appeal.

Alan Sugar is slagging her off now, but, where was his discernment when he offered her the job? And, maybe that is all she wanted - the job she was supposed to have had.
Quite, the show was always promoted to us that the winner gets to be his apprentice for a year. That doesn't mean he can stick the winner in a room & just pay them for it without taking any more interest in them. It's effectively false advertising. I won't be watching again, no matter how incompetently funny the candidates are.


....that said, I do wonder if Stella is visiting the Bridge Café this morning...
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 15:16
soulboy77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,003
Exactly. The £100,000 salary is the prize for winning The Apprentice and after a year you are released from the contract. Unfortunately Stella English actually believed the job was real, which reveals an astonishingly high level of naivety.
She should of used the time to network and line up a lucrative 'real' job elsewhere at the end of her contract.
soulboy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 16:16
Terryallgold
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,008
Judge was probably Alans mate
Terryallgold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 16:21
fickrick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,106
if there was thr slightest chance of her winning it would never have got to court, it would have been dealt with. Looks like she threatened him and he said carry on. I am sure hes not belligerent enough to go through a court case if his lawyer thought she had a case.
fickrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 17:20
di60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
if there was thr slightest chance of her winning it would never have got to court, it would have been dealt with. Looks like she threatened him and he said carry on. I am sure hes not belligerent enough to go through a court case if his lawyer thought she had a case.
or confident it would be 'dealt with' in their favour....

only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf

Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous....

She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures....

Harsh lesson for her.....
di60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 17:30
mirrormirror
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,346
or confident it would be 'dealt with' in their favour....

only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf

Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous....

She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures....

Harsh lesson for her.....
I think this was a very harsh lesson to those you are in very fortunate positions but become greedy.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
mirrormirror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 17:43
di60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
I think this was a very harsh lesson to those you are in very fortunate positions but become greedy.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
depends what it's feeding you though
di60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:17
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
I rarely side with a big company over an individual in a case like this, but in this case I am certainly on Sugar's side against Stella. What I think Stella didn't understand is that the programme is called The Apprentice. That means it is for people who are still learning, not for people who already know it all - so her claim that she was an overpaid tea girl is a bit stupid really. Watching Stella on the programme, I would say that she was completely overqualified for the position, and I'm baffled as to why he gave her the job.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:34
guy60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Billingshurst
Posts: 484
Stella seemed to be one of the more streetwise and sensible contestants on the apprentice so I wa surprised she ended up in this mess but certainly not surprised about the outcome.

She hasn't come well out of this and probably now regrets going on to the show.
guy60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 20:59
Jo09
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
or confident it would be 'dealt with' in their favour....

only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf

Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous....

She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures....

Harsh lesson for her.....
Agree with BIB. I suspect there are grounds for appeal. However it did strike me that her case did seem week and I can't understand how Sugar's lawyers didn't get it kicked out before a trial.
Jo09 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 21:16
wazzyboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,514
Agree with BIB. I suspect there are grounds for appeal. However it did strike me that her case did seem week and I can't understand how Sugar's lawyers didn't get it kicked out before a trial.
Would like to see the case published before drawing too many conclusions. But cannot shake their thought that lower profile employers might rightly or wrongly have come off worse.
wazzyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 21:40
di60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
Agree with BIB. I suspect there are grounds for appeal. However it did strike me that her case did seem week and I can't understand how Sugar's lawyers didn't get it kicked out before a trial.
You can only appeal on a point of law - you must identify flaws in the legal reasoning of the original decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) will not normally re-examine issues of fact.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/...ppeals/appeals

will be interesting to see if she does, I wonder if more or less accusing her of lying would constitute 'flaws in the legal reasoning'?

One things for sure, she needs a damned sight better legal team than she had before.... and who would pay for an appeal? ... wonder if she was in a 'union'..... I was lucky, they paid my legal fees (until the other side re-imbursed them )
di60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 23:58
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
I'd agree with that.

As is so often the case on DS, it seems like it was more a case of people supporting one thing simply because they don't like the other thing at all rather than because the issue actually has any merit.
For me, I can say I supported Stella not through any animosity to Sugar, but because I believed (and still believe) that what she said was substantially true and that she was treated pretty shabbily. I'm sorry she lost the case.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 00:31
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Can I just point out that other than Stella, I don't believe any of the other winners ever had a bad word to say about Sugar or his companies, even winners who didn't work out like Michelle and Yasmina? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 01:06
di60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
Can I just point out that other than Stella, I don't believe any of the other winners ever had a bad word to say about Sugar or his companies, even winners who didn't work out like Michelle and Yasmina? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
not many of them hang around him for long by the look of it... but in fairness, I guess that's not what its about...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21717377

and they're obviously shrewd enough to keep any grievances they may have had to themselves...
di60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 01:23
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
not many of them hang around him for long by the look of it... but in fairness, I guess that's not what its about...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21717377

and they're obviously shrewd enough to keep any grievances they may have had to themselves...
Tim and Simon stayed around for quite a long time. Michelle left early on, but to be honest I think she came across as someone who wasn't particularly loyal and wanted to add winning The Apprentice to her list of achievements. Someone like Ruth or Ansell would have stayed longer, I think. Not sure how long Lee stayed, but he carried on working with Sugar's son so he presumably doesn't have disputes with him personally. Yasmina left because of personal family commitments, specifically getting pregnant twice. Tom and Ricky were more recent winners, so it is harder to comment on their successes as yet, but from what I've heard their businesses seem to be doing fine. Arjun and Zara are focussing on their educational commitments at the moment, which is to be expected as they are younger, but they are both very capable so I'm sure they will be really successful with Sugar's fund at the moment. I'm not sure about Ashleigh, but I've heard she's landed a great job and has done various interviews, so I think she will go on to be successful as well.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be as vocal as Stella, but I think the fact that she is the only one who has said anything bad about Sugar at all speaks volumes. Even if they weren't going to publicly air grievances, you would think someone would have said 'Lord Sugar and I have a different approach and didn't see eye to eye' or something like that at some point, if there had been any grievances. All of the comments I have seen from other winners have been nothing but positive.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 01:43
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
I rarely side with a big company over an individual in a case like this, but in this case I am certainly on Sugar's side against Stella. What I think Stella didn't understand is that the programme is called The Apprentice. That means it is for people who are still learning, not for people who already know it all - so her claim that she was an overpaid tea girl is a bit stupid really. Watching Stella on the programme, I would say that she was completely overqualified for the position, and I'm baffled as to why he gave her the job.
Thats been an inherent clash though in the programme from the start (nearly finished reviewing series 3 currently) Its never been presented as a show for lower level management trainees though.

There's an implication throughout that the job is significant. The salary suggests that anyway, but its clearly stated in the early series. In series 3 he even talks at the interview stage about having someone experienced enough to take on a major role in the organisation, as he is getting older. He says he doesn't know that he wants the bother of teaching someone or supervising them. That logically suggests a role that the younger apprentice like candidate can't fulfil and that needs experience and is given power and autonomy.

Its not at all clear if he means what he says, but thats what he says. its also why he says he gets rid of some people. Its what I would pick up if I was applying.

However, the problem is that who wins often follows all sorts of different criteria. In series one he picks someone who is steady, non controversial, and inexperienced - over more successful people on task with stronger CVs. He ends up with the most apprenticeship friendly candidate. - although by then he hasn't much choice left. In series two, he picks someone with a decent show record and comparable success already, who also fits the requirements of the job in hand to set something new up. As in series 1, the winner also has a life journey story. In series 3 ,we leave the final task pre-interviews with Simon getting almost everything wrong, Naomi going to save him, and Kristina damaged. We then have interviews that flip from only Katie and Kristina being identified as fully formed people who can run something on their own, to Kristina and Simon being the people who need someone to help them to the next stage in their career most. He then flips again to giving the job to Simon, despite a weaker show record - either because he is the one who can be the apprentice Lord Sugar said he didn't want the week before, or because he fits the job on offer better.

There's total randomness going on there whether the job goes to the one who needs it most, or the apprentice who is at a stage to learn, or the one who who is fully formed and ready to go independantly, or the one who fits by experience , accent or manner, the job at hand. Depending on what the criteria of the moment are , you can go home early, or win, for having or not having the same merits.

By the time he gets to Stella's year, he doesn't even seem to have those criteria left. She is, as you say, not an inexperienced apprentice , nor is there seemingly a job for someone more experienced to manage independantly, or one to set up some new business. The job doesn't require particular skills or accents.She's just more capable than Chris, and he's disposed of the most capable highflyer, and the younger potential apprentice types, before the final. By the next year, he's given up offering a job at all, and started looking for an entrepreneurial idea that never comes, or if it does, doesn't make the final at all.........
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 05:41
UnlikelyHeroine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).

I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that.

And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business.

If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on.

For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here.
UnlikelyHeroine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 11:12
di60
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).

I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that.

And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business.

If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on.

For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here.
I found your post very interesting I personally found some of the wording throughout the judgement to be very biased, I cant be bothered to go back over all 27 pages, but I recoiled a few times when I felt that the wording was basically accusing Ms English of being a liar, if I recall quite a few times they took the word of LORD Sugar and his staff over Ms English and emphatically stated so....

Ultimately I feel she was incredibly ill advised
di60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 11:21
UnlikelyHeroine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
It isn't bias where the court believes the evidence of certain witnesses over that from other witnesses, though. Bias is where a case is decided on a reason other than on the evidence before the court or tribunal. I can't see a reason why the tribunal would be biased in this way; they have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. The court seemed to find Alan Sugar and his staff more reliable in their accounts than Stella English. That's the kind of decision they are supposed to make.
UnlikelyHeroine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 11:46
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Thats been an inherent clash though in the programme from the start (nearly finished reviewing series 3 currently) Its never been presented as a show for lower level management trainees though.

There's an implication throughout that the job is significant. The salary suggests that anyway, but its clearly stated in the early series. In series 3 he even talks at the interview stage about having someone experienced enough to take on a major role in the organisation, as he is getting older. He says he doesn't know that he wants the bother of teaching someone or supervising them. That logically suggests a role that the younger apprentice like candidate can't fulfil and that needs experience and is given power and autonomy.

Its not at all clear if he means what he says, but thats what he says. its also why he says he gets rid of some people. Its what I would pick up if I was applying.

However, the problem is that who wins often follows all sorts of different criteria. In series one he picks someone who is steady, non controversial, and inexperienced - over more successful people on task with stronger CVs. He ends up with the most apprenticeship friendly candidate. - although by then he hasn't much choice left. In series two, he picks someone with a decent show record and comparable success already, who also fits the requirements of the job in hand to set something new up. As in series 1, the winner also has a life journey story. In series 3 ,we leave the final task pre-interviews with Simon getting almost everything wrong, Naomi going to save him, and Kristina damaged. We then have interviews that flip from only Katie and Kristina being identified as fully formed people who can run something on their own, to Kristina and Simon being the people who need someone to help them to the next stage in their career most. He then flips again to giving the job to Simon, despite a weaker show record - either because he is the one who can be the apprentice Lord Sugar said he didn't want the week before, or because he fits the job on offer better.

There's total randomness going on there whether the job goes to the one who needs it most, or the apprentice who is at a stage to learn, or the one who who is fully formed and ready to go independantly, or the one who fits by experience , accent or manner, the job at hand. Depending on what the criteria of the moment are , you can go home early, or win, for having or not having the same merits.

By the time he gets to Stella's year, he doesn't even seem to have those criteria left. She is, as you say, not an inexperienced apprentice , nor is there seemingly a job for someone more experienced to manage independantly, or one to set up some new business. The job doesn't require particular skills or accents.She's just more capable than Chris, and he's disposed of the most capable highflyer, and the younger potential apprentice types, before the final. By the next year, he's given up offering a job at all, and started looking for an entrepreneurial idea that never comes, or if it does, doesn't make the final at all.........
The point is though, it hasn't been the same job every year. He has always had a different position in mind for the winner, and he has made his decisions accordingly. I think any of the people who have been fired on the show could have potentially won had they been on another series. The one thing that they all have in common though is that they are always bright and sparky, but not necessarily overly experienced - except for Stella really. And if that had worked out, I'd respect his decision and say that he knew what he was doing, but considering what happened, he obviously didn't, and made a terrible mistake. I suppose it had to happen at some point.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 14:05
Jo09
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
It isn't bias where the court believes the evidence of certain witnesses over that from other witnesses, though. Bias is where a case is decided on a reason other than on the evidence before the court or tribunal. I can't see a reason why the tribunal would be biased in this way; they have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. The court seemed to find Alan Sugar and his staff more reliable in their accounts than Stella English. That's the kind of decision they are supposed to make.
For me it was stating things as fact because the believed Lord Sugar's version. I thought a fact was something that happened rather than the most likely course of an event.

I still don't understand how the case got so far if it had so little merit.
Jo09 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 14:58
UnlikelyHeroine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
For me it was stating things as fact because the believed Lord Sugar's version. I thought a fact was something that happened rather than the most likely course of an event.

I still don't understand how the case got so far if it had so little merit.
The tribunal makes its findings based on the evidence before it. It states these in the judgment. These may look like "facts" but it is simply the tribunal setting out what they believe happened. This is how all legal judgments are written.

The case got so far because Stella English and her lawyers pursued it and Alan Sugar refused to back down. Many of these cases settle out of court with a payment to the claimant to make it go away. Alan Sugar made it clear he wanted to defend the action and was prepared to see the court case through. Many respondents do not want the publicity or hassle. AS has commented to the effect that he believes some of these tribunal cases are without merit but are pursued because claimants see their chance to make some money. He has made some comments about Ms English's lawyers too that imply he felt he was pursued because of his money and status. There is an implication by the tribunal in their judgment that Ms English was badly advised but she was obviously keen to see it through and AS felt the same.
UnlikelyHeroine is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28.