Claimant v The Croft Aberdeen Ltd

The respondent accepted that Miss Pealing was owed £100 for a shift on 3 February 2024 which she was not required to work for good reason. The tribunal ordered payment of this sum.

The tribunal found that Mr West's conduct in gesturing to put money down Miss Pealing's cleavage was treatment that would not have occurred to a male comparator. The less favourable treatment was motivated by the fact that she was a woman and but for her sex this would not have happened. The first respondent was vicariously liable for Mr West's conduct during the staff night out as there was a sufficiently close connection between the event and employment.

The tribunal found that Mr West's conduct was unwanted, of a sexual nature, and violated Miss Pealing's dignity and humiliated her, satisfying s.26(2) of the Equality Act 2010. Although there was no physical contact, the gesture was clearly sexual in nature. The first respondent was vicariously liable. However, the tribunal rejected the claim that Mr Eagar's grievance outcome letter or telephone comments also constituted harassment.

While the tribunal accepted that Miss Pealing's verbal complaint and written grievance were protected acts, it found she was not subjected to any detriments because of them. The respondents endeavoured to facilitate her return to work and gave assurances she would not have to work with Mr West. The grievance outcome letter, while poorly framed, was not influenced by the protected acts and did not amount to a detriment. Miss Pealing failed to establish a prima facie case.