The claimant was employed by the first respondent from April 2018 as a Business Development Co-Ordinator.   She had known ‘C’ (a respondent) previously and he had informed her of the role and she was very excited about it, having just finished Sixth Form.  The primary function of the role was to organise client functions to generate new business opportunities.

‘C’ was the claimant’s line manager and director of the company.  Despite the working relationship there was also a personal relationship and they each considered themselves to be friends. They would regularly text each other about non-work matters. The case arose out of an incident on 20th June 2019. The respondent was holding an event at Ascot to thank clients for their custom.  This event did include alcohol and the claimant stated that she did have a drink but largely she drank tonic or lime and soda. This was to give the impression that she was drinking with the clients, but she was not having the alcohol intake. There was some dispute about how much the Claimant may have drunk and the respondents also submitted details of what the claimant was wearing – although theTribunal considered that it was wholly irrelevant what the claimant was wearing and no relevance was given to the points relating to how much the claimant may or may not have had to drink.  The allegation was that ‘C’ had inappropriately touched the claimant in the back of the taxi following this event.

Following this, the claimant made no reference to it, and she continued to be friendly with ‘C’ in the text messages. The Tribunal found that this was as a result of the enjoying her job and that she did not want to leave the company.  A number of incidents followed including ‘C’ calling the claimant a ‘c***’ and requesting that she wear make-up suggesting she looks that a ‘spotty adolescent’ otherwise.  The claimant informed some fellow employees about the allegations as well as the co-director at which point, she also informed him that she was going to be resigning.  There was confusion about whether it was a resignation or a dismissal, but it was clear that she left the business in September/October.  The Tribunal found that it amounted to a summary dismissal in early October considering that the uncertainty surrounding the ‘resignation’ did not demonstrate that it had actually been done.

In terms of the events, it was held by the Tribunal that this constituted unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and it was intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive for the claimant. Additionally, there was ‘sex harassment’ considering the fact that the claimant was subjected to inappropriate language.  It was also found that the claimant was summarily dismissed.

At a subsequent remedy hearing, a total award of £43,427.02 in compensation was made, which comprised of £7427.02 for financial loss, £26,000 for injury to feelings and £10,000 in aggravated damages.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates an incredibly difficult situation for a young female employee who had been taken advantage of and treated disgracefully by her manager.  This was made all the worse considering that she had thought of him as a friend.  One of the difficulties that was clear was the lack of confidence that the claimant had in reporting such behaviour to others within the company and it was only after a period of time that she had to considering her unhappiness in the role.   Employers should try to create open systems by which individuals feel confident that they will be heard when they are reporting issues or matters within the workplace. 
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/a-v-b-c-d-and-e-3202970-slash-2019