Benjamin Mendy wins most of unpaid wages case against former club Manchester City

06 November 2024 - 13:24 By Sam Tobin
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Benjamin Mendy of FC Lorient celebrates with teammates after the Ligue 1 match against Paris Saint-Germain at Parc des Princes. File image
Benjamin Mendy of FC Lorient celebrates with teammates after the Ligue 1 match against Paris Saint-Germain at Parc des Princes. File image
Image: Xavier Laine/Getty Images

Former Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy on Wednesday won a partial victory in his case against the Premier League club for more than £11m (R250.7m) in unpaid wages after he was charged with and acquitted of sexual offences.

The France international filed an employment tribunal claim against Manchester City last year, seeking unpaid wages and interest from when City stopped paying him in September 2021 until the end of his contract in June 2023.

Mendy argued City had unlawfully deducted wages he was due under his contract, saying in a witness statement he had been promised he would be paid after he was cleared.

City's lawyers, however, said Mendy was not paid because he “was not ready and able to perform his duties ... as a consequence of his own conduct”, as he was held in custody before his trial for breaching his bail conditions.

Judge Joanne Dunlop upheld part of Mendy's case in a written ruling on Wednesday.

A summary of the tribunal's judgment stated: “The result of this decision is that Mendy will be entitled to receive most of his unpaid salary, though not all of it.”

Dunlop said in her ruling Mendy spent two periods in custody, covering about five months of the 22-month period of his claim and during which City was entitled to withhold his pay.

When Mendy was not in custody, Dunlop found, he was “ready and willing to work” and prevented from doing so by impediments such as his suspension by the Football Association and bail conditions “which were unavoidable or involuntary on his part”.

“In those circumstances, and absent any authorisation in the contract for the employer to withhold pay, he was entitled to be paid,” Dunlop said.

Reuters


subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.