Case 1805951/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Duffy v East Riding of Yorkshire Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805951/2021
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East Tribunal via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Duffy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Duffy, a site coordinator at Parkside primary school since 2008, was suspended in April 2021 after four female members of staff complained of sexual harassment. The respondent first investigated through the head teacher and then, after the claimant objected, appointed an independent investigating officer, MK. A disciplinary panel heard seven allegations in July 2021, found the first six proved, and dismissed him summarily for conduct. An appeal rehearing in October 2021 was unsuccessful.
Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell line of cases, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant had made the key comment to SC about her "designer vagina". The tribunal found that comment was a sexual reference, that SC was upset by it, and that the respondent was entitled to conclude it violated her dignity and created a hostile or degrading environment. It held that the claimant's lack of intent to harass did not prevent the conduct amounting to sexual harassment for disciplinary purposes.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments about collusion, school culture, and inadequate investigation. It held that MK's investigation, including the stratified staff interviews about the alleged banter culture, was reasonable, that there was no material need to re-interview SC, and that the disciplinary and appeal procedures were fair overall. It also treated the admitted parts of allegations 1, 3, 4 and 5 as capable of amounting to sexual harassment, and said allegation 6 alone would not have justified dismissal.
On sanction, the tribunal held that the deliberate making of the offensive comment was a wilful act capable of amounting to gross misconduct, so summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. After judgment, the tribunal allowed the respondent's costs application and ordered Mr Duffy to pay £10,000, finding that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Separate costs order made against the claimant for £10,000. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- band of reasonable responses
- Radia v Jefferies International Ltd
- rule 76(1)(b) no reasonable prospect of success
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.