Sex discrimination roles reversed
A woman’s ‘blow job’ quip to a male employee was sexual discrimination, ruled an Employment Tribunal. This case is unusual in that the roles were reversed and it was a man who complained of the sex discrimination.
In Elworthy v Your-Move.Co.UK Ltd May 2017, the Employment Tribunal agreed that the remark by manager Ms Sarah Thompson made sales consultant, P Elworthy, feel uncomfortable. The Employment Tribunal upheld his direct discrimination claim but found that the remark did not meet the bar for harassment.
The Employment Tribunal heard that Sarah Thompson made the remark after a boozy works lunch in December 2013. She told Mr. Elworthy that if he achieved £180,000 in sales, she would give him a ‘blow job’. Another employee, Mr. Barrett, claimed that Ms Thompson said that he was excluded from this ‘benefit’ because he was married. Mr. Barrett claimed he took the remark as a joke.
The court also heard that four or five colleagues carried on drinking after the lunch. They were talking about sales targets and their effect on their bonuses. Sarah Thompson denied making the remark and said she regarded him as a friend. Mr. Elworthy said he did not complain at the time because he feared for his job.
Less favourable treatment
However, he did complain about the quip when he had a second disciplinary hearing in September 2016, after he handed in his resignation letter. The tribunal accepted that Mr. Elworthy was a high performing mortgage adviser. He was a pleasant, articulate and intelligent man.
Led by Employment Judge Elliott, the tribunal stated: “We have found above that Ms Thompson’s comment left the claimant feeling “a bit uncomfortable” and “not great”. It did not meet the bar for harassment but we find that the effect on him was nevertheless detriment. It was a highly sexualised comment and we have no hesitation in finding that the comment was made because of the claimant’s gender. We find that Ms Thompson would not have made an equivalent comment to a woman. We therefore find that the comment was less favourable treatment because of sex and the claim for direct sex discrimination succeeds.”
Mr. Elworthy’s claim came under direct sexual discrimination as defined in section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Tribunal did not find in his favour in regard to constructive dismissal and other employment law issues.
For further advice about the Equality Act please contact Sharma Solicitors 03454300145.
Sh**************@sh**************.com
. www.sharmasolicitors.com
Related News Stories
An advanced mental health practitioner was recently awarded over £60,000 after he was sacked without a fair process. An employment…
The CBI has been rocked by accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. With its reputation in tatters, members leaving by…
Swearing at work was ruled acceptable by one employment tribunal judge, while another gave out £71,000 in compensation when a…
Government agency bosses used a flawed procedure when firing a top foreign envoy for a sexual harassment accusation. The British…
Employers risk making poor and costly decisions in response to employees asking to work from their homes. Two cases have…
A judge slapped down an employer who failed to follow a fair procedure when sacking a nurse for being racist.…
A well-known clothes store's flawed promotion and assessment process landed them with a £96,208 judgement at an employment tribunal. Bristol…
An employer lost an unfair dismissal case after summarily sacking an employee rather than go through a fair procedure. London…
The government has increased the scope for employers to sack employees without the threat of court cases. The new law…
A high street giant’s attempt to cut their staff bill was slapped down recently due to employment law. The High…
A landmark court ruling has boosted employment lawyers’ chances of protecting ‘sex change’ workers from harassment and unfair dismissal. Birmingham…
Government have changed their advice on telling employees to return to the workplace due to a spike in virus infections.…
The looming end to the government’s job subsidies in November will lead to some cynical bosses using redundancy to victimise…
A rail company did not need extensive medical evidence to sack an employee for being too sick to work. Employment…
An employment tribunal in November 2016 decided that a company fairly dismissed a worker when her refusal to do overtime…
Foreign workers have a right to appeal if they face dismissal over doubts about their UK residency status, appeal judges…
New legislation compels people in a workplace dispute to talk before going into legal battle in a court. Whether they…