Miss L Merriman v The London Mint Office — 2020

Miss L Merriman brought claims against The London Mint Office for direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex and victimisation. The Tribunal found that after she moved from the collections team to the TFUP sales team in November 2018, she entered a relationship with Manager A, that the relationship later broke down, and that gossip and disruption developed on the sales floor. On 4 January 2019 Ms Lawrence told her she was moving back to collections, that the real reason had to remain confidential, and that she should say collections needed help. The Tribunal found there had been some misunderstanding about the exact sequence Ms Lawrence expected, but that the claimant understood she was not to reveal the real reason for the move.

The direct sex discrimination complaints failed. The Tribunal found the move back to collections was made because Ms Lawrence and RK wanted to separate the claimant and Manager A and reduce disruption to the business, not because the claimant was a woman. It found the claimant was moved rather than Manager A because she had only recently joined TFUP, had short service and earlier experience in collections, whereas Manager A was more senior and more established in the sales team. The reduction in earnings potential was treated as a consequence of that move rather than a separate discriminatory decision. The dismissal on 8 January 2019 was found to have been based on Ms Lawrence's belief that the claimant had breached an instruction not to discuss the reason for the move and had continued to discuss the situation at work, not on sex.

The harassment complaint also failed. The Tribunal rejected the Facebook contact of 17 November 2018 as unwanted conduct or conduct with the required effect under section 26. It found that the 8 January 2019 email attaching the audio recording was sent by the claimant herself, so it could not be harassment by the respondent. It also found that the 26 March 2019 incident at the claimant's new workplace was, at most, a private dispute about a vehicle invoice and was not shown to have been carried out in the course of employment by anyone for whom the respondent was responsible.

The victimisation claim failed because the pleaded protected acts were not made out. The Tribunal held that the 4 January conversation and the 7 January request for reasons did not amount to protected acts, because they did not complain of discrimination. Although a later email referred to discrimination, it was not part of the pleaded protected acts and, in any event, did not materially influence the dismissal decision. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim in full and made no award.