Ms Tharoo, counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant worked for the respondent as a core surgical trainee until 4 August 2020. The tribunal found that on 11 June 2020 XY subjected her to unwanted sexual conduct at work, including hugging, touching and kissing her without consent and preventing her from leaving the room. The respondent did not seek to contest that account, and the tribunal found that conduct to be harassment because of sex.

The tribunal also found that, on 24 July 2020, Dr Elsayed's enquiries of HH went beyond the stated terms of the MHPS investigation. Although the tribunal did not accept that the specific words alleged by the claimant, including a question about promiscuity, had in fact been used, it found that the line of enquiry was intrusive into the claimant's personal relationships and character, was made after the claimant had complained about sexual assault, and had the effect of violating her dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment. The tribunal found that this was harassment because of sex.

The respondent relied on a reasonable steps defence under s.109(4) Equality Act 2010 in relation to XY's conduct. The tribunal rejected that defence, finding that the respondent's equality and dignity at work training was limited, not well embedded in practice, and not effective in ensuring that clinicians and HR staff understood the relevant procedures or the consequences of harassment. It also found failures in the handling of the complaint, including delay and poor communication, though remedy was not determined in this judgment.

The victimisation complaint was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's complaint about XY's conduct was a protected act, but held that the questions Dr Elsayed later asked XY on 4 September 2020 were asked in the course of the investigation and to understand the relationship between the claimant and XY, not because the claimant had made a protected act. The tribunal therefore found no victimisation.