Mr Sommer (husband) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant was employed from June 2017 as a Band E political risk underwriter in London and was dismissed in October 2020 after the respondent said her role was redundant. This liability judgment decided direct sex discrimination, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex harassment, equal pay, victimisation and unfair dismissal. It did not fix compensation; a separate case management discussion on remedy was listed.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal found that Mr Llewelyn made the 13 December 2017 sexual comment, the 8 November 2018 'reckloose' remark, shouted 'shut up' on 8 February 2019, and then pursued a negative course of conduct from March 2019 onwards. That included the 19 March 2019 meeting in which he used gendered language about her being dominant, submissive or needing to show vulnerability, and the requirement for a non-standard personality test and 360-degree feedback. The tribunal also upheld later exit-related conduct, including the refusal of home-working, the decision to place her at risk of redundancy and the later meetings and emails about removing her from the business. Some allegations were dismissed, including the 28 January 2019 'good fit' remark, the 8 November 2018 comment for direct discrimination purposes, the failure to tell her about vacancies, the April 2020 promotion complaint and the baby-card allegation.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal held that the refusal to permit home-working in April/May 2019, the 9 September 2019 handover-call request while she was off sick with pregnancy-related ill health, and the failure to tell her about two senior-underwriter vacancies while she was on maternity leave were unfavourable treatment or detriment. It also held, in the alternative, that the October 2020 redundancy selection was maternity-related unfavourable treatment. The tribunal rejected the baby-card allegation as an oversight and rejected the April 2020 promotion allegation because it found she was not yet ready for the senior-underwriter roles.

The harassment claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the 13 December 2017 comment, the 8 February 2019 'shut up' remark, the 19 March 2019 career-development meeting and the follow-on personality test/360 feedback were unwanted conduct related to sex that created a humiliating or hostile environment. It also upheld the 8 November 2018 'reckloose' remark as unwanted and humiliating conduct. The more general 'late January onwards' micro-aggressions allegation failed because it was too vague.

Equal pay failed because, although the tribunal accepted there was some overlap in day-to-day tasks between Band E and Band D underwriters, it found differences of practical importance in experience, authority and seniority. Victimisation failed because the tribunal found the complained-of detriments were driven by the earlier decision to dismiss the claimant, not by protected acts. Unfair dismissal succeeded because the respondent did not establish a genuine redundancy situation; the tribunal found no reduction in the need for underwriters and concluded the redundancy justification had been retrofitted to a prior decision to exit the claimant.