Claimant v Ocorian Services (UK) Limited

In February/March 2022, Mr Holmsen made a comment about Erik Sjoberg 'growing a pair of tits' to look after his child during paternity leave. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to sex and created an offensive environment for the claimant, even though not directed at him personally.

In November 2022, Mr Holmsen displayed an image of a woman in a tight swimsuit showing cleavage, nipples and vagina during a Teams call. Tribunal found this objectified women, was unwanted conduct related to sex, and created an offensive environment for the claimant despite his absence from the meeting.

In January 2023, Mr Holmsen responded to a suggestion to sponsor a 'women in finance' event by laughing and saying 'well there are no women here'. Tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to sex and offensive to women, creating an offensive environment for the claimant.

On 6 February 2023, Mr Holmsen shouted over Lisa McLauchlan during a Capital Markets meeting and challenged her knowledge in an aggressive tone. Tribunal found this targeted behaviour towards a woman was unwanted conduct related to sex and created an offensive environment for the claimant.

Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss the claimant was made on 23 February 2023, before he made any protected acts or disclosures starting 12 March 2023. Mr Holmsen did not know the claimant was gay at the time of the decision. No evidence that sexual orientation influenced the dismissal.

Claimant's grievance emails of 12 March 2023, 14 March 2023 and 17 March 2023 constituted protected acts alleging breaches of the Equality Act. Following these, R1 changed approach to claimant's equity treatment, removing it from negotiation and issuing an open leaver notice, treating him less favourably as an intermediate leaver. This was done because of the protected acts.

Claimant's communications of 12, 14 and 17 March 2023 were protected disclosures containing information tending to show unlawful conduct (bullying, discrimination) by Mr Holmsen and R1. Claimant reasonably believed disclosures were in the public interest given FCA regulation context. Following disclosures, his equity treatment was changed to his detriment.

R1 conceded prior to the hearing that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

The decision to dismiss was made on 23 February 2023, before the claimant made any protected disclosures (first on 12 March 2023). Therefore the protected disclosures could not have been the principal reason for dismissal or materially influenced it.

Claimant succeeded in claim that his equity treatment was changed to his detriment on the ground of his protected disclosures. However, claims regarding dismissal and leaver announcements failed because dismissal decision predated disclosures and no evidence announcements were because of disclosures.

Tribunal did not consider alternative harassment complaints regarding dismissal and equity treatment as victimisation and whistleblowing detriment claims succeeded on those matters.