Claimant v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal found that by late 2017 the claimant and Y had become involved in an intimate personal relationship, including overnight stays and consensual sex. It rejected the claimant's account that the relationship was purely platonic. The tribunal did not make findings on whether the alleged rapes in August 2018 occurred, because it considered it unnecessary to do so for the employment claims and, on either version, Y's conduct at his home was too far removed from employment to make the respondent vicariously liable.

Most of the alleged workplace harassment by Y, portering staff and other colleagues was found not to have occurred. Where conduct did occur, such as Y's messages and voicemails, invitations to his home, or the references in family proceedings, the tribunal held it was either not unwanted, not related to sex, not sufficiently serious to satisfy the harassment test, or not done in the course of employment. The tribunal also rejected the claim that the respondent failed to protect the claimant from Y or from workplace gossip, finding that it barred Y from bank work, put in place a safety plan, and made reasonable efforts to investigate and manage the claimant's concerns.

On the victimisation allegations, the tribunal held that the claimant did not do a protected act when she first reported rape to management in August 2018, because she was reporting a criminal matter rather than making an Equality Act complaint. It found later complaints from September 2018 onwards did amount to protected acts, but the claimed detriments were not caused by those acts. The 4-year sickness review, the band 1 to band 2 transition, temporary redeployment, and the handling of later grievance processes were found to be part of wider management or safety processes, not retaliatory treatment. The tribunal therefore dismissed the direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims in full, and no award was made.