Ms A v Mr M Hill — 2021

This was a liability judgment. Employment Judge Joffe sat with Mr D Carter and Ms F Bond and upheld sexual harassment, harassment because of rejection of sexual conduct, sex-related harassment, and victimisation claims against Mr M Hill. The tribunal found that before the employment began the respondent offered the claimant a London role and a flat-sharing arrangement, then on 22 September 2017 told her he could not share a flat with a woman he loved unless she shared a bed with him. The tribunal relied heavily on the contemporaneous text messages following that call and found that the respondent had put the claimant in a position of acute vulnerability after she had accepted what the tribunal described as an attractive and potentially life-changing opportunity.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's sexual harassment complaints under s.26(2) Equality Act 2010. It found that on 11 December 2017 the respondent got into the claimant's bed, rubbed his erection against her, wrapped his arms around her and attempted to fondle her breasts; the majority also found a further incident in January 2018. It upheld the claimant's account that the respondent repeatedly entered her bedroom at night, made comments that she was overreacting, must be 'frigid or something' and that there was 'something wrong' with her, and engaged in sexual touching in the Westminster office by approaching from behind, rubbing his penis against her bottom, attempting to fondle her breasts, and touching her bottom. The tribunal found this conduct was unwanted and had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The tribunal also upheld a substantial part of the s.26(3) harassment claim, finding that after the claimant rejected his sexual conduct the respondent treated her less favourably in a series of ways. Those included his reaction to her booking twin hotel beds rather than a double room in February 2018, the midnight text of 13 May 2018 extending probation, failure to give the promised pay rise, requiring her to work in the constituency during the summer recess despite an earlier promise, repeated threats to give notice on the shared flat, ignoring work communications, making Mrs Greig her line manager, the 30 June 2018 text terminating employment and threatening notice on the flat, refusal to maintain agreed car-travel arrangements without an occupational health assessment, the November 2018 text threatening to notify IPSA she was off payroll, parts of the redundancy consultation, deactivating her pass, the management report, the allegation that she went off sick because she wanted the respondent as line manager, and her dismissal. The tribunal found some pleaded s.26(3) allegations, including the allegation that the respondent instructed Mrs Greig and Ms Bartholomew to treat the claimant inappropriately, were not made out.