Claimant v DB Engineering & Consulting GMBH

The Respondent conceded that the actions of Mr. Skelton on 27 January 2022 (smacking the claimant on the bottom and biting her on the ear) amounted to sexual harassment. The tribunal viewed CCTV footage confirming the claimant's account was accurate. The respondent no longer relied on the statutory defence previously advanced.

Ms. Durre announcing on 28 March 2023 that the claimant's role was no longer required was unwanted conduct but did not violate dignity or create the proscribed hostile environment, and there was no evidence it related to sex.

Sending abridged minutes of the 28 March 2023 meeting did not amount to unwanted conduct, did not violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and had nothing to do with the claimant's sex. The notes were produced in a manner typical for Germany.

Failure to respond to the claimant's emails between 11 April and 18 April 2023 about the minutes did not amount to unwanted conduct, did not violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and had nothing to do with sex.

Inviting the claimant to a meeting on 18 April 2023 despite her resignation could not logically be unwanted conduct as the invitation was sent on 11 April 2023 prior to her resignation and there was no evidence it related to sex.

Sending revised minutes on 20 April 2023 was not unwanted conduct given the claimant had requested corrections, did not violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and had nothing to do with the claimant's sex.

Trying to make the claimant redundant on 27 April 2023 with a consultation process was unwanted conduct, but did not reasonably or objectively violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and there was no evidence it related to sex.

Sending the 'at risk' letter on 28 April 2023 was unwanted conduct but did not reasonably or objectively violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and had nothing to do with the claimant's sex.

Sending a letter purporting to terminate employment on grounds of redundancy was unwanted conduct but did not reasonably or objectively violate dignity or create the proscribed environment, and there was no evidence it related to sex.

The removal of the claimant from the Toronto Project on 15 February 2022 by Ms. Harbich amounted to a detriment. The tribunal found the only reason for removal was the claimant's complaint about Mr. Skelton (a protected act). It would not have happened but for the complaint, even though done with good intentions to 'protect' the claimant.

Removal from the Microsoft Teams chat and SharePoint relating to the Toronto Project on or before 11 April 2022 did not amount to a detriment because the claimant had already been removed from the project and did not need access. There was no evidence the protected act materially influenced this decision.

Failure to explain why the claimant had been removed from the chat and SharePoint between 11 April 2022 and 17 May 2022 did not amount to a detriment as she was not disadvantaged by the delay. There were no facts to suggest any protected act or her sex had anything to do with the delay.

Ms. Durre announcing on 28 March 2023 that the claimant's role was no longer required amounted to a detriment. The tribunal drew inferences from the failure to call key witnesses, lack of documentation evidencing a downturn in UK projects, the timing of the alleged redundancy, evidence from Mr. Hunefeld of no downturn, and prior 'chats' among senior leadership that the claimant was 'out'. The respondent failed to prove the protected acts and sex played no part.

Sending an email with abridged minutes on 28 March 2023 did not cause a detriment because the notes were amended once the claimant raised concerns. There were no facts suggesting the protected act or sex materially influenced the production of the notes, which were taken in the manner customary in Germany.

Failure to answer the claimant's complaints about the minutes between 11 April and 18 April 2023 did not reasonably amount to a detriment given the short period and the fact the notes were subsequently amended. There were no facts suggesting the protected act or sex had anything to do with the delay.

Inviting the claimant to a meeting on 18 April 2023 despite her resignation fails on its facts. The invitation was sent on 11 April 2023 before the resignation and would not have been known to Ms. Feroce-Vernikovsky at that time.

Ms. Durre trying to make the claimant redundant on 27 April 2023 amounted to a detriment as by that point the claimant had resigned and made clear she did not consider a redundancy process of any benefit. The tribunal drew the same inferences as for allegation 7(d) and found the respondent failed to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.

Sending the 'at risk' letter on 28 April 2023 and the purported termination on grounds of redundancy subjected the claimant to detriment. The tribunal found the same facts as for allegation 7(i) shifted the burden of proof, and the respondent failed to discharge it. These acts would not have occurred but for the protected acts.

Allegations against Mr. McNenemy (delay in investigation, interviewing Mr. Skelton first, and accepting Mr. Skelton's resignation) failed. There was no delay by Mr. McNenemy; the timing of interviews did not amount to a detriment; and Mr. McNenemy did not accept the resignation (it was Mr. van Houten). No facts suggested the protected acts materially influenced these matters.

Removal from the Toronto Project on 15 February 2022 failed as direct sex discrimination because there were no facts to infer sex had anything to do with the decision. If a male employee had made a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr. Skelton, there is nothing to suggest they would have been treated differently.

Removal from the Microsoft Teams chat and SharePoint on or before 11 April 2022 failed as direct sex discrimination because there was no evidence the claimant's sex had anything to do with her removal from those groups. Mr. Skelton was also removed after his resignation because he was no longer part of the project.

Failure to explain removal from the chat and SharePoint between 11 April 2022 and 17 May 2022 failed as direct sex discrimination because there were no facts to suggest sex had anything to do with the failure to provide an explanation.

Ms. Durre announcing on 28 March 2023 that the claimant's role was no longer required succeeded as direct sex discrimination. The tribunal drew the same inferences as for the victimisation claim and found the respondent failed to prove the claimant's sex played no part in the treatment.

Sending abridged minutes on 28 March 2023 failed as direct sex discrimination because there were no facts to suggest the claimant's sex materially influenced the way the notes were produced. The notes were taken in the manner customary in Germany.

Failure to answer complaints about the minutes between 11 April and 18 April 2023 failed as direct sex discrimination because there were no facts to suggest sex had anything to do with the delay.

Inviting the claimant to a meeting on 18 April 2023 despite her resignation fails on its facts. The invitation was sent on 11 April 2023 before the resignation.

Ms. Durre trying to make the claimant redundant on 27 April 2023 succeeded as direct sex discrimination. The tribunal drew the same inferences as for the victimisation claim and found the respondent failed to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.

The claimant never resigned with immediate effect; her resignation was on notice. The respondent expressly dismissed her by terminating her employment on grounds of alleged redundancy, bringing forward her termination date from 18 July 2023 to 28 April 2023. There was no evidence of a genuine redundancy situation. The respondent failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal.

The claim of constructive dismissal failed because the tribunal found the respondent had expressly dismissed the claimant during her notice period. However, the tribunal noted that had the respondent not terminated the contract, the claimant would have been constructively dismissed due to breaches of mutual trust and confidence arising from the announcement on 28 March 2023 that her role was 'no longer' required and the handling of the meeting minutes.