Claimant v R1

The tribunal found the claimant was removed from the management WhatsApp group, asked to return her keys, and falsely accused of theft immediately before her dismissal. These acts were done because she made protected disclosures about R4's alleged abusive relationship with Person A and because she raised grievances about sexual harassment by R5. The tribunal concluded these were detriments under s47B ERA 1996 and victimisation detriments under s27 EQA 2010.

The claimant was dismissed on 19 June 2021 by R4 without any right to reply or proper procedure, 20 minutes after being falsely accused of theft. The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair under s103A ERA 1996 because it was done for making protected disclosures about R4 and R5's misconduct. The stated reasons (poor performance, gross misconduct, breach of social media policy) were found to be completely unfounded and fabricated.

The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to detriments and ultimately dismissed because she raised a formal grievance on 9 June 2021 alleging sexual harassment by R5 and other discriminatory conduct. The respondents constructed a false disciplinary case and dismissed her in retaliation for making protected acts under s27 EQA 2010. The dismissal was conducted in a brutal manner by the very individuals she had complained about.

R4 made comments about watching staff on CCTV from his bath and wishing there were cameras in the toilets. He also stood inappropriately close to the claimant during training. R5 repeatedly made sexual comments about the claimant's nipples after she emerged from the freezer, commented she should not bend down in front of men, and discussed pornographic games at work. These unwanted conducts of a sexual nature violated the claimant's dignity and created a hostile work environment.

R5 referred to a homosexual staff member with epilepsy as a 'gay retard' after an argument and on another occasion referred to a co-worker as a 'butch lesbian'. These offensive comments related to sexual orientation were made in the claimant's presence and created a degrading environment. The tribunal found these amounted to harassment under s26 EQA 2010.

R5 repeatedly referred to a co-worker of Indian ethnicity as 'Barry' in the claimant's presence, mimicked his accent when speaking to him, and used the phrase 'thank you, come again' (a racist stereotype). The tribunal found this conduct related to race and was harassment under s26 EQA 2010, creating a hostile and degrading environment.

R5 referred to the claimant as a 'gay retard' during a training session after observing her table layout. This offensive comment related to disability (the use of the derogatory term 'retard') and violated the claimant's dignity. The tribunal concluded this amounted to harassment related to disability under s26 EQA 2010.

R4 and R5 repeatedly used the female birth name and female pronouns when referring to a former colleague who identified as male. They customarily referred to this person as 'the heshe' and when the person left employment, R4 told the claimant 'It has left'. The tribunal found this conduct related to gender reassignment and amounted to harassment, creating a degrading and hostile environment.