Ms S Simalyte v Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited — 2020

The claimant worked at the Newport restaurant from October 2014 until September 2017. The tribunal found that her relationship with colleague H deteriorated after an October 2016 approach in which he said he was attracted to her and invited her out after work, which she refused. It held that, from then until 17 August 2017, H engaged in a course of unwanted conduct including ignoring her, interfering with her work, and unwanted physical contact. The tribunal concluded that this conduct was related to the claimant's sex and violated her dignity, so the harassment claim succeeded under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal dismissed the separate harassment claim based on the managers' failure to act on the claimant's complaints. It found that the claimant had overstated how much detail she had given to management, that some enquiries had in fact been made, and that Ms Hill's inaction was not motivated by the claimant's gender. It also rejected both direct sex discrimination claims: on the 18 August 2017 altercation the tribunal preferred the evidence that the claimant started the incident and that the pushing was mutual, and on the grievance decision it found the outcome was based on the evidence before the decision-maker rather than on sex.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct as a whole, including H's harassment and the delayed response to the grievance sent on 15 September 2017, amounted to a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant did not affirm the contract during her sickness absence and that her resignation on 29 September 2017 therefore amounted to a dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and was unfair. The judgment also records that the notice-pay claim succeeded, although the extract does not state a sum for notice, and it orders payment of £801 net for accrued holiday pay.