In person For the v Respondent — 2017

Miss K Gillard, a barrister and Chambers Manager at Goldsmith Chambers, brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, direct sex discrimination, direct sexual orientation discrimination, and victimisation. The tribunal recorded that she was a worker from January 2016 but not an employee. It also identified 39 alleged public interest disclosures, two of which were withdrawn, and found that a number of oral disclosures were not made or did not form part of the pleaded case.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal held that only disclosures 3 and 12 were protected disclosures, both relating to the £5,000 transfer from the Argent fees account and associated accounting concerns. Most of the other relied-on disclosures were found not to be protected because they did not sufficiently disclose a breach of legal obligation, were not in the public interest, or were simply personal workplace complaints. The tribunal further found that the respondent’s alleged detriments were not caused by protected disclosures: complaints by staff were their own, the 25 April 2016 email eventually reached the investigator, the delay in the ECM awaited Mr Gardiner’s report, the subcommittee was properly constituted, and the suspension was based on concerns about bullying, financial impropriety, and the Legal Cheek leak. The post-termination letters and police contact were found to be about repayment of sums due and Mr Gersch’s concern that he was being harassed.

On direct sex discrimination and direct sexual orientation discrimination, the tribunal found no prima facie case. It rejected the claimant’s later evidence that Mr Metzer was homophobic, found that the claimant’s comparators were not shown to be in materially similar circumstances, and accepted that Chambers was roughly gender-balanced with women in senior roles. The tribunal also found that the challenged steps, including the suspension, escort from the building, circulation of notices, and expulsion from Chambers, were not taken because of sex or sexual orientation. It held that the comments about female counsel using the title Ms were not discriminatory.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant’s pleaded protected acts did not succeed because the recruitment-interns issue and the Selita issue were not framed as allegations of Equality Act contraventions, and other alleged protected acts were either not made, not pleaded, or not established on the evidence. Even where the claimant relied on the issuing of proceedings as a protected act, the tribunal found that the relevant actions either predated service of the claim or were taken for other reasons, including recovery of money due and the conduct investigation. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.