The claimant initiated proceedings asserting that she had been directly discriminated against on grounds of her sex, harassed for a reason related to her sex and victimised by subjecting her to a detriment because she had done a protected act or acts.

The claimant was a Public Affairs Manager for the Big Lottery Fund. She decided to send a #MeToo tweet in response to a feature that appeared on the BBC television show Newsnight. The Newsnight report was about undercover journalists who had exposed harassment of hostesses working at the notorious men-only Presidents Club black tie charity dinner.

Whilst the programme was on air, the claimant posted the following tweet on Twitter: 

“Having been a hostess, I can confirm you don’t have to sign a non-disclosure contract unless there’s something an employer wants to hide.  33 years this event has been happening.  They knew. #Times Up #PresidentsClub #MeToo #newsnight”

The respondent employer categorised her tweet as ‘political activity’ under its Code of Ethics. The tweet received substantial media attention and she was asked to give various television and newspaper interviews.

The claimant sought approval from various senior managers to partake in the anonymous interview, none of whom expressly told her not to proceed. She was later chastised for participating in the interview and told that she had exercised poor judgment. The claimant felt like she “was being scolded.” She was angry for being reprimanded in circumstances where she had sought advice in the correct way.

The Court held that posting the tweet and giving the interview were protected acts.

‘There was a clear link in the mind of Mr. Baskerville (former Senior Head of Policy and Public Affairs) between the content of the tweet/interview and the less favourable treatment.  We have found that he knew that the subject matter of the tweet/interview was sexual harassment and this subject matter was “of sufficient weight” in his decision-making process to be treated as a cause.’

The Court held it was clear from the evidence that respondent had concerns about the possibility of perceived links with the Presidents Club and that it feared the matter rebounding on the respondent.

The claimant’s claim for victimisation was upheld but her claims for direct discrimination and sexual harassment were dismissed.

The Court held the case fell at the lower end of the Vento scale and awarded the claimant £6,000 for injury to feelings. The claimant felt intimidated and the incident caused her much distress. The Court awarded £483.94 interest at 8%.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c51af01ed915d7d2da81e67/Ms_E_Gutfruend-Walmsley_-v-_Big_Lottery_Fund_Ltd_-_Case_Number_2205176_2018_-_Full.pdf