Cases1600111/2022

Claimant v Grafters Group Limited (t/a CSI Catering Services International)

21 October 2025Before Employment Judge J. BromigeCardiffin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Harassment(sex)failed

The tribunal found that CD subjected the Claimant to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature on 1 November 2021, which violated her dignity and created an intimidating and hostile environment. However, the Respondent was not liable because CD was not acting in the course of his employment when the harassment occurred. CD offered the lift voluntarily, was not required by the Respondent to work at Hereford that day, and the Respondent had arranged separate transport for employees.

Facts

The Claimant worked as a casual hospitality worker for the Respondent from September 2021. On 1 November 2021, she believed she was due to work at Hereford Races and missed the arranged transport. A colleague, CD, offered her a lift. During the journey, CD told her she was not required to work and then sexually assaulted her by touching her inappropriately, showing pornographic videos, making sexual comments, and placing his finger in her ear after licking it. The Claimant reported the assault to police that day. The Respondent had actually cancelled the Claimant's shift on 29 October but had not informed her.

Decision

The tribunal found that CD had subjected the Claimant to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which violated her dignity and created an intimidating environment, constituting sexual harassment under s.26 EqA 2010. However, the Respondent was not liable because CD was not acting in the course of his employment when offering the lift. The Respondent had arranged separate transport, CD was not required to work that day, and his offer of a lift was voluntary and not sanctioned by the Respondent.

Practical note

Employers may not be liable for sexual harassment by employees occurring outside the workplace where the employee was acting entirely of their own volition, was not required to be present, and the employer had made separate arrangements that did not involve the harasser.

Legal authorities cited

Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724Jones v Tower Boot Co Limited [1997] ICR 254Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs [1999] ICR 547R (on the application of the Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police) v Police Misconduct Tribunal [2020] IRLR 964

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.26(1)(b)EqA 2010 s.26(4)Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.3EqA 2010 s.109(1)Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.11EqA 2010 s.26(2)

Case details

Case number
1600111/2022
Decision date
21 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
Hospitality/catering worker
Service
2 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No