Claimant v DoiT International UK & I Ltd

Complaint against WB at 1.1(a) regarding comment about eating was presented out of time. No conduct extending over a period established and claimant failed to show it was just and equitable to extend time. Struck out for want of jurisdiction. If tribunal had jurisdiction, it would have failed on merits.

Complaint against WB at 2.1(a) regarding comment about eating was presented out of time. No conduct extending over a period established and claimant failed to show it was just and equitable to extend time. Struck out for want of jurisdiction. If tribunal had jurisdiction, it would have failed on merits.

Complaint at 1.1(b) regarding sexual assault by WB: Tribunal accepted claimant's account that WB orally raped her in her hotel room. However, tribunal found the act was not done in the course of WB's employment. By the time they were in the claimant's hotel room, there was no sufficient connection to employment. The assault occurred off-site, off-duty, in the private sphere of the claimant's hotel room, after the work event had concluded. WB was not acting in the course of employment when he accompanied claimant to her hotel room; his motivation by that stage was to take advantage of her sexually, not to assist a colleague. No jurisdiction to hear complaint. Struck out against both respondents.

Complaint at 2.1(b) regarding sexual assault by WB (brought under both s.26(1) and s.26(2) EQA): Tribunal found that if it had jurisdiction, the complaint would have succeeded against WB under both sections 26(1) and 26(2) but would have failed against first respondent because first respondent took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct (statutory defence established). However, tribunal found no jurisdiction because the act was not done in the course of WB's employment for the reasons set out above. Struck out against both respondents.

Complaint at 1.1(c) regarding failure to suspend WB: Tribunal found respondent took immediate action by placing WB on garden leave within hours of the report, preventing any contact with claimant. This was as good as suspension. Decision not to formally suspend or to allow WB to work from home during investigation was not because of claimant's sex but due to WB's remote working arrangement and need to preserve confidentiality during investigation.

Complaint at 1.1(d) regarding respondent writing directly to claimant: No less favourable treatment established. Respondent was entitled to write to claimant via her solicitors, which it did. Not because of sex.

Complaint at 1.1(e) regarding respondent suggesting claimant was at fault for being raped: Factual basis not established. Tribunal found no reasonable reading of the letter in question suggested claimant was at fault, blamed her, or implied she was under the influence of alcohol. Letter was written to defend allegations and further settlement negotiations, not because of claimant's sex.

Complaint at 3.2(a) regarding failure to provide support: Factual basis not established. Tribunal found respondent provided considerable support including: prompt contact, attending hospital, assisting with visa arrangements for claimant's boyfriend, securing alternative accommodation, conducting thorough investigation, maintaining contact and updates. Claimant herself expressed gratitude for support at the time.

Complaint at 3.2(b) regarding failure to suspend WB: As per direct discrimination claim above, factual basis not established. WB was placed on garden leave immediately. Not done because of protected act.

Complaint at 3.2(c) regarding refusal to allow claimant to return to work: Factual basis not established. Respondent did allow claimant to return to work and she did do some work, albeit limited duties in accordance with occupational health advice. Any interactions about return to work were out of concern for claimant's welfare, not because of protected act.

Complaint at 3.2(d) regarding emailing claimant threatening redundancy: Factual basis not established. No such email on 7 February 2023 found in evidence.

Complaint at 3.2(e) regarding sending undated letter directly to claimant and its contents: Factual allegations not established on fair reading of letter. Letter did not suggest claimant was at fault, blamed, or under influence of alcohol. Letter was to defend allegations and further settlement negotiations, not because of protected act.

Complaint at 3.2(f) regarding implying claimant was at fault for working under influence of alcohol: As above, factual basis not established. Nothing in letter reasonably suggested this.

Complaint at 3.2(g) regarding terminating claimant's employment: Decision to make claimant's role redundant was made in November 2022, before the protected act of 30 November 2022. Claimant would have been dismissed by early December 2022 but for the intervening events. Reason for dismissal remained redundancy throughout. The protected act was no part of the reason for dismissal.