Claimant v Pets at Home Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant fully participated in sexual conversations with TW and that these were not unwanted at the time. The claimant had a good relationship with TW until 26 October 2022 and regularly engaged with him via WhatsApp and video calls. The tribunal found it was only in hindsight, after her ex-partner suggested TW was grooming her, that she re-characterised the interactions as harassment.

The tribunal found that key alleged acts were either not established (e.g., MS allowing TW to see investigation notes) or did not amount to less favourable treatment. TW's comment about wishing he had known the claimant before her previous bad relationships was found to be empathetic rather than an attempt to 'convert' her to heterosexuality, and would have been said to anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Although the claimant's grievance and appeal were protected acts made in good faith, the tribunal found no causal link between the protected acts and the respondent's failure to uphold them. The decision-makers (CS and BP) were not cross-examined about their reasons, and it was not put to them that they rejected the grievance/appeal because the claimant had complained.

The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions: the grievance was properly investigated (delay was justified by complexity and festive period), the outcome was reasonable given the lack of corroborating evidence, and the suggestions to move stores or pursue mediation were appropriate and supportive responses. The conduct complained of was not calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.