Background:
The claimant was employed as a legal secretary from 4th January 2022 until her resignation on 21st February 2022. The respondent was a legal firm. The owner of the legal firm was a Mr Hall. It was his 60th birthday on 22nd January 2022. The claimant sent him a WhatsApp message outlining a pub as he was looking for a place to go for a family meal for his birthday. She also gifted him a bottle of gin and a birthday card.

A few days later the claimant received a message stating ‘Hi sweetheart see you in the morning xx’ but this was quickly deleted. The respondent’s evidence being that it was a mistake as he was speaking to multiple people on messages at the time and was having a bottle of wine. The Tribunal accepted that explanation especially as Mr Hall had apologised instantly and stated it was sent by mistake. However, his initial explanation was that it was for another woman yet at a later point he stated it was for his daughter. On the same day as the other explanation, Mr Hall explained how he was single and that he caught his ex-wife cheating on him. He used ‘graphic detail’ about finding a used condom. There were also a range of other conversations mentioned by the claimant relating to Mr Hall’s previous relationship and the breakdown of his marriage. There were also comments such as Mr Hall stating that the claimant looked nice and asking if he was allowed to say that. The claimant also set up a Facebook account for Mr Hall and stated she was uncomfortable when she had to look at it and there were multiple dating type requests from scantily dressed ladies.

Outcome:
The primary issue for the Tribunal was looking through the range of comments made and actions of Mr Hall to determine whether any of them fell within the category of sexual harassment as set out in law. It was found that many of them did not have sufficient evidence, many did not meet the threshold in terms of making the claimant uncomfortable but that there were some which did meet the threshold. It was found that the difference in story about the message to the claimant made her feel uncomfortable and that it was of a sexual nature. It was further found that the incident about finding the used condom when his wife was cheating, the comment about the claiming looking nice and being allowed to say that and seeing the adverts from the dating sites on Mr Hall’s Facebook. The respondent did argue that the claimant had contrived these situations as she thought she was going to lose her job after making some mistakes. The Tribunal did not agree with this but found that the situations above did constitute sexual harassment.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
There were a range of conversations and actions within this judgment that the Tribunal had to examine against the legislative framework vis-à-vis sexual harassment. This case does provide an example of the type of conduct which could make an employee feel uncomfortable, it being of a sexual nature, and it had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It is important that staff are regularly trained on these matters considering the effect they can have on the workplace generally but also to stop such cases from arising.

The full case can be found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66866d254a94d44125d9ccb6/Miss_Megan_Bratt_v_JGQC_Solicitors_Limited_2601388.2022_Judgment.pdf